Rural internet access for a minority. Granted, it's awesome for those that now get high speed internet for the first time, but if rather we didn't pretend this was globally relevant.

Pricing eliminates starlink for poorer regions where it'd be needed most (by a factor of at least 10). Personally, id really rather avoid it because who in their right mind would trade eu privacy for us rules by switching to a us based isp.

That's a subjective question. Different people value different things and have differing preferences and priorities. At best, it depends on our goals. This is why these things need to be dealt with publicly and democratically.

> That's a subjective question.

Its not subjective question though, lot things (including working with the govt services) are moving online even in India. Having reasonably good internet connectivity is now a necessity.

First, if a state requires internet connectivity then it's their responsibility to provide it. Second, just because somone's being forced to need something doesn't mean they don't ultimately value something else more. Third, even valuing your survival over destruction of the commons is a subjective preference, so yeah, it's always subjective. Anyway, this all needs to be worked out demoratically with all information and options, not by authoritarians forcing limited choices onto people.

> if a state requires internet connectivity then it's their responsibility to provide it.

That sounds good on paper but it does now work like that in real life, in India or the US people who live far away from metro regions, providing connectivity is not an important topic for getting votes so you wont see politicians fighting for it. So Democracy is not going to solve that.

I dont know about you but if there is a question about my survival then its not subjective to me, maybe you dont value your life but I do.