I fully agree with respect to global high speed internet. However, I'd point out that if being able to contact someone in an emergency even in remote locations is someone's concern, that technology already exists in the form of personal locator beacons (which can also send and receive texts) using existing satellites.

Sure. Absolutely existing geosync satellites exist, the iridium network exists. They are not very accessible tech, and neither would be used to stand up an emergency tower. And maybe it's just my impression, but it seems when I read stories of someone lost in the wilderness, it's often people who don't take precautions, are casual hikers. And for them, having a cellphone that functions, with maps, text and calls, could be lifesaving.

As a personal note, a relative was doing coastal sailing (US east coast, bahamas), and while he wanted access to the iridium network for maps and emergency contact, he couldn't afford the data rates and device costs. He settled for downloaded maps and checking in by cellphone when possible. So, if he was lost out in the crossing to the bahamas, there would have been no contact. (yes, I realise that at present, Starlink is not yet offering ability to move around with your dish, so RV and boats are out of luck for now, apart from the possibility that more towers may spring up)

Something like the Garmin inReach is pretty accessible these days. A few hundred dollars for the device and as low as about $12/month for the subscription. If I did a lot of solo stuff in out of the way areas, I'd probably have one.

That said, I agree that casual hikers doing dumb things and getting lost definitely happens. But cell phone reception is hardly a panacea. Just because you can call 911 doesn't mean that someone is going to come get you if the conditions are bad. I actually have very mixed feeling with the newish assumption a lot of people have that their cell phone will always work and that, worst case, they can just call for help.

This is more expensive, slower internet access for most people, no?

Satellites aren't going to beat cables

Their latencies are supposedly lower than the ocean cables - low enough that HFT is investigating. https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/itlrjc/starlink_l...

Their costs are moderately higher than existing broadband right now (if you aren't rural), but in news articles I read in past as they upgrade the satellites for more simultaneous connections the goal is to have a lot more subscribers at much lower costs.

Also, for remote areas of the world it would be a choice between this and nothing else.

Even if you were sharing the starlink dish with a few thousand other households to bring the cost down to affordable for your area, you'd still have an improvement over nothing.