I hadn't really considered the issue of population density being a downside until now, I am also curious about these limitations.
The big problem is that, at least to my knowledge, nobody really has a good idea where the threshold is for users/area for Starlink. The good news is that SpaceX will maximize the limits [that are set and, to a degree, regulated by the FCC and ITU] in such a way that it’s all but guaranteed that they’re going to be able to serve a higher density of users than legacy FSS.
The real ‘limit’ here is primarily power flux density (PFD), which is basically a measurement of microwave intensity on the ground. There’s a bit to it but from a service perspective what ultimately ends up happening is that PFD caps data rate within an area on the ground, which in practical terms means there’s a maximum number of users that can be in that area.
It’s kinda like the hotspot on your mobile—it works fine if it’s just you and maybe one or two other people, but life would suck for everyone if you had 20 people buckled in. For Starlink maximizing that ‘20’ is high priority since, unlike the mobile analogy, they’re all individually paying customers.
Our current service is approx $200 per month due to the pay per gb pricing.
Ill be VERY surprised if there no data cap on Starlink, though it will certainly be way up there. Way beyond, say, most people’s mobile (or legacy FSS) service caps. It won’t be infinite like hardwire services [basically] are because that would mean SpaceX did a crappyy it job at designing the satellite network, but it’s probably going to high enough that it’s immaterial to most people and only discretely advertised as a cap.