> Half a million is cheap compared to other satellite internet services i was referring to. I don't know that, but it is still more expensive than deploying 5G

> Half a million is cheap compared to other satellite internet services i was referring to. I don't know that, but it is still more expensive than deploying 5G towers, as I have explained in my previous comment. > Do you think we should bother to connect these people or not? I never said rural areas don't deserve broadband service, I'm not sure where you got that from. I'm saying that their best chance to get fast, widely available broadband services, is to force telecom companies to deliver on the promises they made when they received billions in subsidies. I'm also saying that Starlink is not the solution, because it is more expensive, slower, and less reliable than 5G, and unless a significant investment is made, it will get even less reliable over time for a number of reasons. Also, we seem to be forgetting that Starlink is not even profitable as of 2023, and will need hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments to finally break even. Since, as you said, rural internet is not profitable enough to invest money in it, unless Starlink gets some federal money, their chances of providing a sustainable, long term service to rural communities, is next to nil.