Is, at this point, pretty irrelevant.
We've been over this quite a bit in the big starlink thread, but bottom line, Starlink's near term future is all about current internet service subscribers. I always come back to the same statement: There are VERY few people in the US that want good internet access who aren't already paying for shitty internet access.
So...Starlink's user base, almost exclusively, is going to be converting those existing internet service subscribers who necessarily both a) want better access than the shitty access they're already paying for and b) can afford paying the price ∆ (in the cases where Starlink is more expensive than their current service). That rolls up into 1) likely a significant percentage of the current FSS market, and 2) affluent-enough users on the fringes of terrestrial coverage that have unacceptably slow speeds.
(Commercially there's of course also the remote MNO backhaul opportunity as also discussed quite a bit in the big thread)
Yes, yours is a story we hear often, especially on this affluent webforum. And to be clear, its a legitimate one--your story is very much representative of an ideal Starlink subscriber. What's important is that folks not allow bias to overindex on the wrong elements of the nation wide access problem when advocating for Starlink.
Make no mistake, the digital divide is very much a thing and very much needs to be addressed/closed. But while there is absolutely an infrastructure element to the problem, while there will definitely be bureaucratic liberties applied to survey data, and while there will definitely be nefarious takes by recipients of RDOF and other funds, the main problem rises above all that: By far the major factor is and will always be economic. Lots of people simply can't afford fixed service or a house full of devices to use that service, especially when they're already shelling out a ton of money to their MNO...for basically 'broadband' speeds. Just in the US.
