To be clear: I'm arguing monopolies can increase efficiency so they can cause costs to go down but they also eliminate the motive to pass those cost savings on to customers so they usually cause prices to go up. This is well-known enough to be a key part of the strategy of "disruptive" companies that grow by pricing out the competition at a loss and then ramp up prices later (e.g. Amazon, Uber, etc).
The US is notorious for its lack of competition in local broadband providers but this is less true for other countries. So while Starlink may disrupt local monopolies of higher prices and worse quality in some places, especially in the US, in the long term it's rational to expect them to aim to replace the monopoly, not to continue having to compete.
Given the site guidelines discourage voting based on agreement, I wonder what part of what I say is so fundamentally wrong and counter-productive it's not even worth responding to and actively detrimental to the conversation.
Is it that I say that monopolies can increase efficiency (e.g. Apple making their own chips and having their own stores)? Is it that companies often disrupt industries by pricing out competition at a loss before hiking prices? Is it that US broadband providers often operate in effective monopoly positions? Is it that Starlink can be disruptive to those monopolies? Is it that it's rational to expect SpaceX to want to be the new monopoly rather than being stuck in permanent competition?
Heck, I literally use Starlink because cable wasn't available and I didn't want to pay for copper until we'll be connected to fiber hopefully later this year. I'm not arguing Starlink isn't useful to consumers in the short term or that there aren't legitimate use cases that can't be equally served by other existing technologies. That doesn't mean there aren't obvious problems with it.
The US is notorious for its lack of competition in local broadband providers but this is less true for other countries. So while Starlink may disrupt local monopolies of higher prices and worse quality in some places, especially in the US, in the long term it's rational to expect them to aim to replace the monopoly, not to continue having to compete.