Starlink seems to be a very cheap option in comparison, even if it has LoS and overheating problems.
When (if) those customers ever get broadband access by additional infrastructure investment, SpaceX will need to find a way to provide better value. I’m not sure I understand how this is a bad thing.
The problem is that this view means you need politicians who care enough about the issue and many simply don't. I like there being a solution that eliminates a lot of the political factors that cause endless dither and delay over building traditional infrastructure for rural broadband, and for that matter my opinion of Elon Musk is still higher than most of my country's politicians when it comes to technological policy.
There's also another important use-case for things like Starlink which is people who can't be reached by traditional infrastructure. These are people who live in remote parts of the world where governments won't consider investing in infrastructure on grounds of cost, and people who live a nomadic lifestyle (liveaboard sailors for example, and van dwellers depending on where they go). I don't think they should be cut off from the internet because of an overly sceptical attitude towards new approaches.
Amazon and OneWeb are also looking to build constellations. It isn’t a StarLink question.
Starlink provides an excellent example of a deeper problem I see with new technology vs. traditional infrastructure. We know how to do broadband in rural places. We do it all over the planet. We simply tax income and spend it on infrastructure.
Elon Musk (and the likes) see an opportunity to disrupt this simple answer and make money selling a different unproven solution that has the potential to be at best as good. For me this is bad news. If politicians get sold by the likes of Elon Musk, it will stand in the way of traditional proven infrastructure and—in the case of starlink—fast and affordable broadband connection for rural communities.