Regular satellite internet already provides price-per-gigabyte that is competitive (or superior to, in the case of Viasat) with mobile internet services. It's the latency that's lacking. With a LEO (and the then VLEO) constellation, Starlink could actually do better than some mobile internet providers as far as latency. 25-35 milliseconds for Starlink (maybe more in some cases) versus like 80-100 milliseconds for LTE providers (much worse for 4G and terrible for 3G).

So I definitely think Starlink could compete in that market. But more as an equal than as the only option.

Latency? No, the problem is price and data caps.

If SpaceX is going to make huge returns on starlink, they will have to be price competitive with at least the DSL providers that are in many rural communities. Many of your remote rural areas in the US have at least 6 to 10mbps for ~$60 a month, and that's plenty for most casual users. Even for video streaming.

Keep in mind that 6-10mbps isn't going to be enough for casual users in a few years. Take gaming for example. Companies are regularly releasing 6-10 GB patches willy nilly because they assume their customers can download them in a matter of minutes/hours.

And that's now, when there's still large urban areas in a lot of countries on DSL. Once that DSL is phased out, rural areas are going to need better sattelite options or expensive long stretches of fibre to not fall behind the curve.

Fixed wireless plans also have data caps, and you can get satellite unlimited plans affordably now (with soft caps, but so does most everyone else), at speeds greater than DSL.

The main issue for rural satellite access is no longer bandwidth or even data caps but latency.

And if you have DSL in rural areas, count yourself lucky.

I'm not talking about competing with mobile networks. I'm talking about fixed wireless service.

What about places with no mountains?

What about mobile users?

Antennas on towers, like for cell networks.

Starlink doesn't work for mobile users, either.