It's a matter of perspective.

I know people living in remote and even not so remote areas for whom cheap and easy internet access would literally be a live changer, and who wouldn't care less about astronomers having their work more difficult as a consequence, because, again, it would be a literal life-changing event for them in terms of personal safety, agriculture, income or education.

Where, just out of curiosity?

Who will pay for that big complicated ball of light streaks so that the internet will become cheap?

Is it those rural users currently aren't profitable enough to supply otherwise?

There's a lot of misinformation about how visible Starlink is. The satellites are barely visible (and only in dark skies) in their operational orbits. Next-gen versions (with albedo reductions, which they've started experimenting with) will likely be operationally invisible entirely. This doesn't mean it won't be an issue for astronomy with incredibly sensitive instruments from which almost nothing can hide. SpaceX is working with the astronomy community to try to improve the situation for (especially) ground survey campaigns.

As far as who will pay for it... SpaceX has lower launch costs than anyone else by a significant fraction as well as lower satellite costs (likely by a similar fraction). There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.

Satellite internet already several billion in annual revenues from rural areas, in spite of the terrible service and high (expendable) launch costs. It doesn't take much for SpaceX to be profitable here; being a satellite service provider historically is much more lucrative than being a launch provider. The main unproven hurdle I see is user terminals, not the constellation itself.

The launch costs are nowhere near the most expensive part. By using leo they have cornered themselves into using technology that won't be available to consumers.

Competitors OneWeb are using the same technology and have been more open about their user terminals. They claim $15 for a ~256-element phased array antenna: https://spacenews.com/wyler-claims-breakthrough-in-low-cost-...

Even if off by an order of magnitude, that's well within the price range of consumer terminals.

Oneweb is not using the same technology. They're both using phased array, but SpaceX couldn't solve the low price point like oneweb, so they have it mounted on a motor. That will surely increase cost and reduce longevity.

Oneweb is another story, and regardless of their antenna, it's not clear how they're going to monetize.

They're both using phased array. The motorized mount is only for pointing optimization during the installation process; it's not going to be constantly motoring around. (and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX drops that eventually... they're trying to minimize installation costs to lower than current satellite dishes so the customer or unskilled worker can basically just plop it in the ground without adjustment while still optimizing the signal.)

Whether or not SpaceX "couldn't solve" the low price point is unknown. I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims they can't do it. Don't be too willing to buy OneWeb's PR. "Special sauce" is marketing speak. Execution is what matters. (This works both ways... OneWeb will eventually be using reusable rockets--i.e. from Blue Origin and others--like SpaceX.)

> The motorized mount is only for pointing optimization during the installation process; it's not going to be constantly motoring around.

Please cite a source on that one. If they're putting a motor on just for installation to point to roughly the right spot, that's a ton of money spent on a motor for a single-use item. That will again point to it not being a consumer product. What's more likely is the motor is making up for the poor scan loss of the cheaper phased array.

But a one-time-use, non-precision motor is pretty inexpensive. A precision motor that has to run 24/7 outside in the elements is super expensive.

Musk is trying to get rid of the $100 cost of professional installation by substituting with a $10 motor. I'm not sure it'll be successful (I wouldn't be surprised if professional installation still ends up happening and they eventually delete the motors), but that is the plan. It's just to get a good view of the sky, not to scan. A reliable scanning motor would cost a lot more. (And they need to track multiple satellites at once... can't do that with a single array steered by a motor, has to be beam-steered.)

Source is here: "Looks like a thin, flat, round UFO on a stick. Starlink Terminal has motors to self-adjust optimal angle to view sky. Instructions are simply: - Plug in socket - Point at sky These instructions work in either order. No training required." https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12145487640542167...

Trust me -- it's NOT inexpensive. Maybe your definition of inexpensive is different from mine, but adding $20-$30 onto the cost of every install is a massive expense, especially when you still have to send a trained installer out to do it. You can't rely on an end user to do it since there are all kinds of issues with placement/blockage/etc. If you choose to ignore that, you spend more money on customer support to help them install it. Notice Elon doesn't say that end users will do it. He just said no training required, just like you don't need training to install tiles in your house either.

> There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.

indeed, even if you have a ground link, something radio based makes a spectacular backup. even if you've got one good high speed link available, it's unlikely you've got two whose failures are even slightly decorrlated.

Based on the prices I've been hearing, yes. $100/month or less for a GB/s connection shared between dozens of houses or more. Or an astute entrepreneur will create a cybercafe or resell it. The small businessmen can also afford it (since they already have satellite TVs), and they stand to make the most from it financially. The possibilities are many.

And it's not a problem of profitability for some, it's a problem of availability. Some could afford what their urban compatriots pay for internet, but that's simply not possible.

Yes! I live 90 minutes from Washington DC and have no land-based Internet access. Our community of 59,000 has probably just 65% true broadband coverage, from one cable provider. The FCC maps are a lie, they show my home and my neighbors as having access.

> there should be some kind of international treaties governing this

There are