If you are right and Starlink will have no competition, then why would it not be regulated? Generally speaking, monopolies are regulated to prevent price gouging, including natural monopolies. And if its not a monopoly, then clearly the game is not over.

Starlink mostly does have competition but they are seeking out specifically underserved customers which is an ever decreasing market. 5 or so years ago I signed up for the waiting list because there was no reasonable internet, 6mb DSL. Before I got the invite there was 4G for $50 a month. Now there's two 5G service providers and Fiber is suppose to come very soon.

In the market for internet service, Starlink is a disruptor to existing ISPs. Especially for those servicing rural areas. I don't understand a reflexive reach to encumber a nascent business model with additional regulations. What problem are you trying to solve?

Because it is not abusing its position. Monopolies are not an inherent bad, they just tend to start abusing their position, and when they do then they get handled.

This is more common with public companies than private companies though.

Founders have their own life, honor, ethics, desires, etc. which usually help strongly keep the company on a positive track. e.g. Valve Corporation.

Because it's owned by the second most powerful man on the planet, who has power over all of the would-be regulators. Politics matters.

What people sometimes don't understand about monopolies, specially of a new product, is that the competition, in additions to all the competition that already exists for internet, is simply not having it.

SpaceX can just asked for an absurdly high price, because if they want to sell into the broader consumer market, people aren't going to pay 1000s of $ a month to watch Netflix.