I've had no issue with starlink when using it at a friend's house, and I would be happy to use it myself if my internet provider decided to charge me more than what Starlink costs. And fiber has its own costs to install and maintain. A lot depends on the economies of scale for both systems, but to think that base station capacity and kessler syndrome fears are insurmountable obstacles is ridiculous.

To me, this is no different than the adoption of mobile phones: "Cell phone usage will never overtake landlines, we'll never fix the problems of bandwidth and cell phone towers that need to be installed everywhere. Sure there might be a market for a few million in the US but no more than that".

▲

AntiUSAbah 6 hours ago | parent [-]

For me its a night sky and astrophotography issue.

https://www.space.com/space-exploration/international-space-...

https://www.chosun.com/english/industry-en/2025/12/11/55MMV2...

And Starlink, Amazon, China, etc. and co want to send up A LOT more.

	▲	newer_vienna 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		As others have mentioned in the thread, the narrow impediments to some night sky photography affect a much smaller portion of the population compared to the benefits these satellites already provide. Returning to the cell phone example, would be like opposing cell phone towers for impeding wildlife photography.