Think about it.Starlink will be faster than 4G, cable and ADSL.
Speed will be comparable to that of fiber and 5G in short distances but will be again faster if the data source is far especially across oceans. This is actually one of the marketing points, targeting stock traders. Starlink claims it will be faster to use their satellites than the current fastest fiber link between London-NYC.
I pretty confident Starlink will be competitive with the price, too. Think about the amount of investment China is spending on 5G to that of SpaceX's Starlink effort. There is an order of magnitude difference may be more 200 billion vs 20 billion??. Obviously small devices like cell phones cannot use Starlink so 5G is supreme for mobile *but* for large enough vehicles (trucks/ships/planes/trains - ignore when they are in tunnels) and homes I think Starlink will be very competitive.
In any case, global coverage at high speed is so significant, it will be a game changer for many cases we cannot even think right now.
I am ready to bet (also hope) we will have similar solutions form other countries. This is a new GPS moment.
Speed and cost are intimately related, because a fixed bandwidth has to be shared across multiple users.
You could have a single Starlink satellite providing ultra-fast services to a small number of users, but they're going to be paying a lot more for that privilege.
In the UK for example, gigabit broadband is being rolled out in the UK for $60 per month.
And a Starlink satellite currently only supports 17 such subscriptions per satellite.
Also, the beam width is going to cause capacity issues, because a satellite cell is going to cover a lot of land area.
Consider California, which has 40million people and covers 423,000km2.
Even the planned constellation of 30K starlink satellites means each satellite has to cover an average of 17,000 km2 of surface area.
That means 25 starlink satellites for California. So that is a grand total of 425 Gigabit broadband connections for those 40million people.
So I'll repeat again, this is why your statement that Starlink Satellite broadband will displace terrestrial-based broadband for many users is incorrect.
These are the primary reasons why Elon Musk only expects 4% of the USA to use satellite broadband.
What do you expect the other 96% of the population to be using?
China is spending a lot more on 5G than Starlink yes.
But you're talking about 3 million existing 4G base stations in China, which could be upgraded to 5G.
And each 5G base station can have the throughput the equivalent of a Starlink satellite, if the consumer demand is there.
I agree high-speed internet will be a game changer for many use cases.
Latencies for long distances will be lower, so yes, financial trading firms will sign up.
But the transmission of the latest trading data barely uses any bandwidth, and there aren't actually many companies that need to shave off 10 milliseconds of transmission time.
Yes, ships and airplanes will see a revolutionary impact by having high-speed internet at a much lower cost than currently.
However, trucks and trains will likely stick with terrestrial 5G networks, because they are already in range of existing 5G base stations.
Plus I'm aware of a number of other companies which are planning to create their own satellite broadband networks.
I did a post on the topic last year.
After all, the business model works because there is a small percentage of people who can't get decent broadband from any terrestrial source. For example, even 4% of the global population means 280million customers.