I imply no such thing. You're projecting your own biases.

I'm merely stating a fact: That not everyone uses Netflix and YouTube, and to consider those life essentials is absurd.

Also, you tweet about streaming shows on FoodNetwork Go, so why do you act like that's any different from Netflix and Youtube?

If you're not talking about the developing world, and just look at the rural and those who don't want a connection, that's not nearly enough people. So it's not wrong at all for people to assume you meant the developing world.

And nobody said they were 'life essentials'.

Well, you certainly are, but I don't think the person who originally brought it up was.

It was really nice to be able to communicate with my travel buddies reliably, but this is definitely the tiered internet people are afraid of.

However just because 3/4G exists doesn't mean people can afford it. In Madagascar for example, the minimum topup is 100 ARY or about 3 cents. Most people can't afford significant amounts of data, especially not when an autoplay video can bankrupt you.

That's the big problem with the argument that starlink is helping developing countries. These countries would be much better off with better rural cellular coverage first, not expensive satellite networking. Unless spacex will subsidise developing nations, who's paying for it?

60% or more of the population in Alaska and Wyoming live in an urban setting. In Texas it's over 80% and in California it's over 90%.

New Jersey's population is 99% urban, does that mean they all chose to live in an urban setting or that the State is so crammed full of people that there's no place to live in isolation?

Looking at a map of New Jersey, it looks like if you managed to setup camp in the middle of a state park you might manage to be 5 miles from the nearest town.