> [...] and very high price

Even if that's true they've effectively subsidized their rocket business and gained more experience through a greater number of launches. Often Elon is trying to kill more than one bird with every stone he throws - maybe he knows he'll need a solar network to support a Mars colony. This is how he gains the tools, people and experience to eventually roll it out.

Doubt it. Elon's made his fortune by replacing existing products with superior alternatives. He's said in every case that driving cost down is one of the most important parts of creating something people want.

Why do you think he wouldn't do the same here? He knows everyone hates existing telecoms. He's trying to create a better alternative.

> He knows everyone hates existing telecoms.

Not true everywhere. I'm paying < $40/month for a 100 MBit connection and I don't hate my telecom.

I'll hate on Comcast enough for two people, then. Or ten, or a thousand. It's unbounded, really.

Competition makes a big difference. Just over a year ago with Google Fiber rearing up, my ISP offered 150Mbps for $35. This year with Google Fiber downsizing, the big American ISPs are back to their duopoly: 25Mbps for $40 or 10Mbps for $30. Hopefully SpaceX is able to force them to lower rates for everyone.

It's not going to replace internet for cities/towns. Think of the latency!

It is directed towards middle of nowhere areas where nobody provides fiber.

If the satellites are in LEO, latency won't be that bad. At 700km height mentioned elsewhere in the thread, added latency might be 10-20ms based on halving the numbers at https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r100277-Whats-the-latency-p... (from 16 years ago).

30ms of latency is mentioned in the article, due to the low orbital altitude.

Which telecom provider?

I was wondering about the price too. If the bandwidth is actually going to be as limited as the numbers in this article imply then it'll probably be out of reach for most of the people who need it.