My little hamlet is 40km (~25 miles) from the nearest established town and it’s nothing but state forest between so it will never be economical to run fibre.

The typical solution is called Fixed Wireless which is essentially the same as 5G or traditional satellite internet.

I’ve used Starlink for years and aside from the exorbitant price I wouldn’t consider switching. The dish is very low voltage so I have a failover system for during power outages to keep my server and work connection going.

Space junk aside I’m glad to see Space X being challenged because some downward pressure on price would be nice

I did a search and found that the satellite internet market size is $16B today and $38B in 2031 (5 years from now)

https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/satellit...

But I also think that focusing on residential internet as the only market might be thinking too small.

There's aviation, maritime, defense, telecom/enterprise backhaul, remote industrial (oil rigs, mines, etc.), and those guys are are not paying $135/month.

This might unlock new applications, like remote sensors and autonomous devices that are out of coverage areas today.

John Deere's farming equipment for instance is already on Starlink, and those things are basically computers on wheels.

The only issue is that satellite internet needs line of sight to the sky. Underground/undersea applicatons are basically out.

There are plenty of roaming applications: camping, boating, flying and war zones, which have both private and enterprise customer possibilities.

Then there are remote places that either have no other option or would like a backup solution.

I've been following the Russia/Ukraine war and satellite internet has been pretty important there. For first world countries not currently being bombed to death, you're probably right. But for everywhere else it is better than waiting for new ISPs to start up and get fiber rolled out. It is the global market outside the US that they are probably going for.

It feels like a consequence of market/regulatory failure in the US rather than a real demand for the technology. Internet access is far cheaper and more widely available in most other developed countries.

The military demand is real enough, though.

From personal experience, there's still a considerable chunk of rural America that isn't wired. I'm currently looking at an area to buy a house, and the only option around is Starlink.

Zero competition. No fiber. No cable. 5G coverage isn't sufficient for my daily needs, but okay for a failover.

Wired cable is such a monopoly that even Google fiber couldnt compete.

Its the only innovation in the space (literally and metaphorically.)

Do you really think these companies are spending billions of dollars on such systems without doing any research as to whether a market for it exists?

"Starlink is SpaceX's primary revenue driver, generating $11.39 billion in 2025 and accounting for roughly 61% of the company's total sales. The satellite connectivity unit is the only highly profitable division of the company, generating an operating income of $4.42 billion"

> It would be a huge selling point over the competition which is allegedly being used in terroristic attacks.

Russia isn’t allowed to use Starlink anymore.

>It would be a huge selling point over the competition which is allegedly being used in terroristic attacks.

Is this a Ukraine war reference?