>there is a low utilization factor for each satellite
So we are getting to the limits of my knowledge here, but I believe that this won't be as big of an issue simply because sats aren't JUST communicating with the ground, they are communicating with each other as well. The routing system will take sub-optimal paths (from what you'd expect) to ensure speeds stay as high as possible and latency as low as possible (with i'm guessing some tweaking of those 2 values when near the limit), and a lot of those are going to include crossing those large oceans and deserts which will keep those sats busy, and will even route toward those large underutilized areas to spread the load out.
>Second, there is a belief that the next billion new Internet users are going to be mobile users
I think this is where the concept of base stations really shine. Rather than pulling fiber to all of your cell towers, you can get those "fiber quality" speeds by just having power and a place to put the tower.
This means propping up new "traditional" cell towers is much cheaper (for customers of Starlink anyway!) and those mobile users could be using Starlink without even knowing it.
>In the developed world, Internet access is frequently bundled with other services, so the potential pool of flexible customers that could be wooed away from their current service isn't that large, either.
This is entirely anecdotal, but I'm 28 years old, and out of all of my friends and family, only my Father has cable. TV over the internet, and streaming services are taking over, and public sentiment isn't exactly high for the traditional internet service providers. Many (at least in the US) feel they don't have a choice, and if Starlink ends up being as well loved by the public at large as SpaceX or Tesla is, then I have a feeling not only will people be willing to switch, but they will jump at the chance!
Though a lot of that is assuming that tesla targets most home users(which I'm not sure if they are).
>Once fiber gets to your premises, it will be much cheaper ber byte than satellite Internet.
It may be cheaper, but it might not be as low latency! Turns out Starlink might be able to get lower latencies across continents than traditional fiber can currently achieve. Obviously it's still up in the air if they will be able to deliver on these numbers, but if they can then there might be a small portion of users who will be willing to pay top dollar for reliable low latency connections.
But taking off my fan hat, I agree that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about starlink, and if it ends up like most of SpaceX's other promises, it will be downgraded at least once in "performance", end up about 10% more expensive than expected, and a few years late, but still amazing.
It may not be the next comcast powering a huge portion of the "last mile" of the internet as we know it, but I'm hopeful it will be a great alternative that can improve things for a significant number of people, and hopefully pays off well for SpaceX.
So we are getting to the limits of my knowledge here, but I believe that this won't be as big of an issue simply because sats aren't JUST communicating with the ground, they are communicating with each other as well. The routing system will take sub-optimal paths (from what you'd expect) to ensure speeds stay as high as possible and latency as low as possible (with i'm guessing some tweaking of those 2 values when near the limit), and a lot of those are going to include crossing those large oceans and deserts which will keep those sats busy, and will even route toward those large underutilized areas to spread the load out.
>Second, there is a belief that the next billion new Internet users are going to be mobile users
I think this is where the concept of base stations really shine. Rather than pulling fiber to all of your cell towers, you can get those "fiber quality" speeds by just having power and a place to put the tower.
This means propping up new "traditional" cell towers is much cheaper (for customers of Starlink anyway!) and those mobile users could be using Starlink without even knowing it.
>In the developed world, Internet access is frequently bundled with other services, so the potential pool of flexible customers that could be wooed away from their current service isn't that large, either.
This is entirely anecdotal, but I'm 28 years old, and out of all of my friends and family, only my Father has cable. TV over the internet, and streaming services are taking over, and public sentiment isn't exactly high for the traditional internet service providers. Many (at least in the US) feel they don't have a choice, and if Starlink ends up being as well loved by the public at large as SpaceX or Tesla is, then I have a feeling not only will people be willing to switch, but they will jump at the chance!
Though a lot of that is assuming that tesla targets most home users(which I'm not sure if they are).
>Once fiber gets to your premises, it will be much cheaper ber byte than satellite Internet.
It may be cheaper, but it might not be as low latency! Turns out Starlink might be able to get lower latencies across continents than traditional fiber can currently achieve. Obviously it's still up in the air if they will be able to deliver on these numbers, but if they can then there might be a small portion of users who will be willing to pay top dollar for reliable low latency connections.
But taking off my fan hat, I agree that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about starlink, and if it ends up like most of SpaceX's other promises, it will be downgraded at least once in "performance", end up about 10% more expensive than expected, and a few years late, but still amazing.
It may not be the next comcast powering a huge portion of the "last mile" of the internet as we know it, but I'm hopeful it will be a great alternative that can improve things for a significant number of people, and hopefully pays off well for SpaceX.