I believe it would be difficult to further prevent this from happening since there is so much more demand for global, low-latency wireless internet than for astronomical observations.
This is very much not true and a remarkably narrow utilitarian view.
I understand US folks are poorly served in terms of ISP infrastructure and competition but please don't try to project those issues as a 'global' problem.
Internet service is a solved problem, you have transoceanic cables and distribution networks which garantee reliable, high bandwith, _wired_ internet service.
Wireless service is a solved problem in densely populated areas, again the issue in the US is the ludicrious pricing of mobile data plans.
The only use-cases that this serves are high-income people that want to go off-grid but are unwilling to sacrifice high-bandwith, and military deployments (Which SpaceX does not hide as an objective). To me these are very poor gains for all the negative impact it brings to science and the 'global' public.
Even in rural parts of Scandinavia where I spent my vacation, 4G signal was too weak and ISP's refuse to lay fiber unless the whole neighborhood commits to subscribe.
This may concern millions of people who need basic or better internet access, meanwhile there are only a few thousand astronomers in the world.
A satellite based internet provider is inneficiently duplicating the existing fiber/copper/cellular infrastructure but more importantly cannot scale to serve the billions of people you mention in your comment.
Do the maths you cannot keep up this alleged 50Mbps link if you add more than a few million users, there is a finite amount of satellites they can add in contiguous trajectories.
The capacity issue means this will never be affordable but to a few select few or state/defense actors.
I agree with your problem statement but this unfortunately is just not the solution.