Wait... if your motives and those of Starlink are aligned, why would we even need CLEC regulation?
Surely that regulation forces the carrier to do something it otherwise wouldn't have (or it would be pointless), thereby suggesting a misalignment of incentives.
Starlink, a corporation, has additional motives available to it that are not aligned with either my own or with regulations:
To selectively partner with only the highest bidder, and to sell them exclusivity to increase that bid, and therefore maximize the profit earned from their monopoly.
The CLEC system was put into place to ensure that this sort of maximization wasn’t permitted on the copper networks that were owned by regional monopolies. Starlink has a regional monopoly on LEO satellite cellular right now, and so they’re subject to the same principles.
If Starlink was a B-corp, or a co-op, I wouldn’t be so certain this sort of thing would end up being necessary — but Starlink as a United States for-profit corporation is compelled to prioritize the profits over all other concerns, specifically including the quality and price of service offered to customers. So, the US regulations forcing non-exclusivity will absolutely be necessary — just as we found with US West’s copper in the CLEC era — and those inescapable US regulations are not in alignment with Starlink’s desires.
Surely that regulation forces the carrier to do something it otherwise wouldn't have (or it would be pointless), thereby suggesting a misalignment of incentives.