SpaceX just filed a request to run 30k more Starlink satellites in orbit

First, and less importantly, source. Because phone companies love to toss out coverage numbers that are pure, unadulterated bullshit. But second that's less important because 3G and 4G are both completely uncompetitive for broadband. LTE is basically the minimum there. And awful data caps and congestion remain a serious issue all over the place.

>A fiber PoP / tower has much lower OPEX than launching, operating a constellation of satellites.

Is it? I mean, seriously. A lot of SpaceX's plans are based on estimated launch costs via Super Heavy, so necessarily somewhat speculative. But the target is sub-$100/kg, and at least in terms of fundamentals (like cost of fuel, Raptor effectiveness, estimated cadence) that doesn't look ridiculous. Each Starlink satellite apparently has a mass over around 230 kg. Add a bit of extra mass for some bigger sats in the mix, double the launch cost to be a bit more conservative, and we're still talking a launch cost per satellite of well under $60k a piece. They necessarily have everything needed to operate their design lifetime, because there is no maintenance that can be done on them. They're operating low enough that solar weather shouldn't be too constant a concern, and of course will never face OPEX costs like vegetation clearing or weather damage or corrosion or the like. Also doesn't face NIMBY tower politics either. Is it actually more expensive then running fiber and building/maintaining a tower? For very high density locations probably, but there's a pretty sizable population in the US alone for whom it seems on napkin math it could be very competitive.

For cities, you're right - 5G + high frequency wavelengths is probably cheaper - but not by that much assuming SpaceX's numbers are accurate.

The problem is 85% of the population is absolutely not covered by high frequency spectrum - tower/DAS coverage is optimized for sub 1Ghz bands. We would need billions upon billions of additional tower builds to deliver an adequate experience on spectrum that basically requires line of sight. Even in cities. Some of that has been invested already (e.g. VZ can reuse their Fios plant in many locations), but certainly not everywhere.

Satellites may very well be more cost effective.

Consider the reverse.

As internet access becomes a staple service for modern living, one’s options for location are restricted to where internet is available: 3G coverage at a barely functional minimum.

Want to solve the housing crisis? poverty? Bring at least LTE performance (100Mbs better) everywhere at a competitive flat rate. Today, many options are untenable for want of a decent data rate.

Now a cheap DSL modem is $10, and it's all a single SoC.

Phased array satellite modems will follow the same price curve.

I want 100Mbps 1TB/mo anywhere.

Keep in mind current cell phone coverage is spotty, with many unserved or underserved areas, and towns where Verizon is clearly better than AT&T, or vice versa.

Running that kind of cell tower network might be cheaper, but running a cell phone network that spans every inch of the globe would be an engineering and logistics feat that would almost be impossible to profit off of.

Even maintenance-wise, servicing a cell tower requires keeping a bunch of contractors around to drive to drive, fly, or even boat to remote areas, and climb a hundred feet once they get there. With starlink, they can just piggyback replacement satellites on customer payloads.

Also, there are around 4 million cell towers in the world to achieve spotty coverage, whereas starlink is targeting 40k satellites for global coverage. I'd have to believe that launching 40,000 similar payloads via similar methods has huge vertical integration advantages over the extremely heterogeneous approaches we use to put up those millions of towers.

Cities are spaced ~1200km apart in much of the world.