There are a lot of places where local providers act like robber barons.
I agree, this may be the best effect Starlink can have : create competition.
> Population of the world is around 8 billion
Yes but which part is able to afford 99$/month (+antenna) + bad local provider which refuse to adapt to competition (first at price/offer level before even infrastructure) + no political reason for a global-us based provider ?
They may find themselves unable to. Cable (including optic cable) networks are not that easy to build everywhere, including some tightly packed cities. And wireless has its limitations too.
"which part is able to afford 99$/month (+antenna) "
Easy. People will share connections, regardless of what the contract says. And Starlink will likely tolerate it in poorer countries.
Here is an overview that is likely quite a bit too conservative, but gives you an idea of the problem regarding somewhat dense areas: https://lilibots.blogspot.com/2020/11/capacity-of-starlink-n...
I mean sure, I'd rather our legislators actually do their job and pass a law enforcing local loop unbundling, but until that point Starlink is a breath of fresh, competitive air.
And once it starts to get rolled out to airplanes, which airline can afford not to offer Starlink connections?
- rural area (with sufficient incomes to afford the price)
- urban area with highly expensive/bad quality landline internet (but still with sufficient incomes to afford the price)
With the development of fiber in most urban area (usually fist in high income part) and the small number in the first category, I don't see how deploying tens of thousands of satellites could be profitable. The only option will be to be able to lower the price but it will need a lot of customers... Could you help me understand ?