I tried to separate the conversation from Elon to keep it more honest about the benefits of accessible internet for everyone anywhere on Earth.

So why do you think that launching thousands of satellites would be more cost-effective than other options?

1. Satellites are expensive.

2. Launching them into space is expensive.

3. Cell phones, and cell phone towers are cheap.

4. Elon Musk is launching them into an orbit where they'll decay in 10 years anyway, meaning you'll have to perpetually launch these thousands, or even 10s of thousands of satellites into space just to keep service.

5. Traditional satellite companies launch fewer numbers of many satellites into the sky to cover large swaths of land instead. Since they aim at rural areas (ex: the Ocean with no one there), they are superior in a cost/efficacy perspective. Yes, there's less bandwidth, but there's less people, so its a fine tradeoff.

6. If you need more density, building cell phone networks / cell phone towers is just superior.

7. If you need even more density than what cell phones can give you, then there's always fiber optic directly.

For the third time, you cannot separate the grifter from the grift. That's not "Fuck Elon", that's "starlink is not, and never will be, what was promised"

Similarly, you can't weigh an abstract possibility versus a real cost. You want the conversation to be some philosophical discourse about social vs societal value. But it's not that, it's a real situation right now.

And in this real life situation, we have to evaluate what starlink actually is - - a failed toy for wealthy early adopters - - and not what some abstract "could be".

Especially when we know for a fact that any public promises of that potential are certainly intended to mislead and not inform.