[flagged]
Low and mid orbit are so polluted that the ISS has to correct it's path multiple times a day to avoid hitting satellite debris and it gets progressively worse.
We're few disasters away from compromising future space exploration and potentially our own survival.
They are suitable only for their current, niche markets e.g. rural areas.
If you truly want global internet access fibre is the best option.
So in that case a small satellite constellation is fine.
Many planets and asteroids have been discovered by amateurs using telescopes and the visible light spectrum, even in the modern era.
More directly practicable, astronomy has given us an understanding of space weather and solar ejections which are fairly critical to things like grid stability and minimizing damages to man made satellites.
Dismissing the loss of the night sky as “pretty pictures” is dramatically underselling astronomy and the benefits that astronomy bring to all of us.
You're right about one thing - It is an unpopular opinion. You're wrong about global internet access being more important than being able to take "pretty pictures" of the night sky.
Global internet access has become a tool for homogenizing opinion. It has become the most useful tool for propagandists and others who would push false narratives as facts in order to steer readers/listeners towards conclusions that are not based on facts. It has been subverted by well-funded groups with an agenda that does not serve the people out in the broad audience.
It could've been a critical part of bringing global societies up to speed on relevant issues that affect their lives and futures. Once the deep pockets with destructive agendas began funding tools to infect others with their world-views it became a weapon, not a tool.
Those of you who work in the industry should rebel against this subversion. I think many won't since the whole software industry appears to be trapped in a cycle of greedy grifts and subscriptions for worthless apps.
Satellite internet has been a game changer for people living in these areas. The people who grow your food deserve to be able to video chat with their family and stream videos at resolutions higher than 480p without constant buffering.
That's part of what the hell I'm going on about.
Satellite internet is a game-changer but like I said, the internet in general has become a useful tool for propagandists to promote whatever message they need to disseminate in order to gain or maintain control of public opinion, allowing then to gain power or to remain in power.
I totally agree that people who grow food, though they don't grow much of mine since I have a fully functional garden/orchard, should be able to chat with friends or family and stream videos if that's what floats their boats.
Part of my family lives in a highly rural area where bandwidth was an issue for them in their lives and jobs. They had to use expensive line-of-sight internet services that frequently suffered during weather events making it difficult for them to stay online during a workday. Their cell service out there was dicey and complicated by the fact that they live in a metal sided house that they built themselves so there were lots of times that they had to step outside to get a signal to use their phones. They have upgraded to starlink now I think and they have fewer issues.
Another family member loves online gaming and has twice bought a home in a rural area with very limited internet access options. Each time before they bought I have reminded them to check the availability of internet access for the properties. Each time I got to listen to them gripe that the only option out there was thru Hughes-Net or some other expensive provider with severely limited bandwidth.
I understand the issue about rural broadband access a little more than you gave credit for.
It wasn't, it was subsidized by the government.