[runako]

My understanding is that Starlink can only service ~6-7 houses per square mile today. The US is ~95/sq. mile on average. 80% of Americans live in "cities."

Anchorage metro is ~15/sq. mile; Yuma, AZ is ~36. The Nashville metro is ~250.

Also, Starlink satellites spend ~70% of their time over the ocean. This will impact the utilization ratio of their gear and force them to launch still more satellites.

[AgentK20]

Simultaneously though, those 80% of Americans that live in cities/within the typical commuting distance of a metropolitan area are also the ones that are usually serviced by at least one broadband or fiber provider. Because of this:

- Having slowly-increasing pressure on those often-monopoly broadband/fiber carriers because people have the option to swap to Starlink, adds competitive pressure for them to improve their service, reduce prices, etc

- The remaining 20% of the population that lives on the 60-80%+ of the land who currently have terrible options, but fit well within the density restrictions of current-gen Starlink satelites, suddenly have options

[runako]

Those are solid points. They also describe Starlink as a niche service with a structurally low TAM.

[downrightmike]

In developed countries ISPs and telcos have to open their lines up to competition and homes pay less and have much more choice. We don't need satellites when the fiber already exists, its just hoarded.

[jraby3]

The new satellites are like 100x better.

[runako]

That's great, they still are bound by physics to spend ~70% of their time over the ocean. I would guess ~80%+ of their time is spent where there are effectively no people.