Certainly that's a technological impossibility, as terrestrial solutions will always be cheaper, faster, and quicker to implement new technology.
The question is really about what traditionally terrestrial markets will be better served by a satellite network, and especially how Starlink's market will differ from the traditional satellite solutions.
At least for [so called] first world regions with strong terrestrial solutions in the population centers, most studies point toward what is basically the 'burbs as the major revenue generating market. Sure everyone in the boons wants connectivity, but the density just isn't there to make a strong business case. And typically in the dense population centers there's plenty of terrestrial solutions that blow satellites out of the water. So the studies show that the big market is people that work in the population centers but live far enough away that they're beyond the reach of the cutting edge technology.
No, not really.
Check out
and pay attention to latency for the long haul routes. It's not going to be better for sending data from San Fransisco to San Diego but it will be better for San Fransisco to any where in the world not in the pacific time zone.
There is no amount of money or new tech that can send data faster underground or underwater or through the air. What starlink will do is send data through space. The speed of light through vacuum is faster than the speed of light through gasses, liquids, and solids. Physics makes this unassailable by ground tech.
so in something like 20 out of 24 cases it'll be clearly better, 21 and 22 might be slightly better, 23 being about the same and 24 being worse. All in all it shrinks the world.
If you've ever played a first person shooter that has an east server and a west server in the US to keep the game playable. Imagine ping is so reasonable that you could play that same game on the US server, UK server, or Asia server and not care as much about the distance.
Now take that to streaming services, and data centers, and AWS, and google, and any global or international business you can possibly think of. If it's superior in 85-90% of the use cases every one will want to use it.
Kids, gamers, impatient people, business people, travelers, you name it. Hell, I live in a large enough city to have multiple internet options and I'm ready to switch sight unseen.
From 55 degrees north (southern Canada, central Europe) down to 55 degrees south (everything but Antarctica) it'll be competitive with any fiber based internet and will likely force fiber based internet to drop prices.
Anything worse that a fiber connection would be relegated to an even lower tier losing value / pricing power in the process. Cable modems, DSL, old school satellite internet. All that stuff gets devalued day 1 that a customer has access to Fiber and gets devalued again when they get access to Starlink.
Think about it, India, China, Australia, Philippines, South America, Central America, Africa, Middle East. It covers pretty much any place not called Scandinavia or Antarctica.
That's a huge market. Pretty much any bandwidth they put up there will sell out, guaranteed. If you don't live in Scandinavia or Antarctica you'll be seriously looking at this for your future internet.
It doesn't matter if you are in the largest city in your country or out in a field hundreds of kilometers from the next human.
It might matter if you can afford it, we don't now how pricing will play out for 3rd world countries. But for anyone that currently has anything like stable internet, this will compete from a technical standpoint if it's even half as good as I expect.