Each satellite costs about half a million (on the low end) to manufacture and launch. They are projected to last about 5 years each. A 5g macrocell (The big ones on huge masts) cost about $150k and lasts about 20 years. The microcells cost about $10k including installation and work great in high density areas. So they last about 4x as long as a StarLink satellite reducing operating expenses even further.
This means, for the cost of a single satellite, you can run about 13 macrocells. In addition, the infrastructure for those cells can last much longer and maintenance is much cheaper.
The only place that satellites makes sense is in remote areas where people aren't clustered as closely. Satellite is great at covering vast swaths of land with fewer subscriptions. So an area that would require 13 or more macrocells or an absurd amount of fiber optics to service a couple hundred people is perfect for StarLink.
The equation will change a lot if or when Falcon Heavy starts operating though. Then we will be able to blot out the stars with relatively inexpensive satellites. But I foresee StarLink using ground cells in denser areas anyways to reduce space traffic since you can't just cluster the satellites over a specific area. Probably they will just rent out the nodes to existing providers to expand cell coverage.
> A 5g macrocell (The big ones on huge masts) cost about $150k and lasts about 20 years
So the days of my carrier forcing me to buy a new phone every few years are over? Sweet. About time they knocked it off with this constant infrastructure churn.
(FYI Falcon Heavy is operational, I think you mean Starship.)
Typically, they just replace the cells on the mast. I think $150k is for the fiber, pole, power, etc... The actual wireless gear is cheaper and can be replaced for upgrades. Although I'm pretty sure that 6g or whatever is just going to be 5g with a minor tweak so you have to buy a new phone. 5g is an excellent protocol and will easily last another 20 years.
This means, for the cost of a single satellite, you can run about 13 macrocells. In addition, the infrastructure for those cells can last much longer and maintenance is much cheaper.
The only place that satellites makes sense is in remote areas where people aren't clustered as closely. Satellite is great at covering vast swaths of land with fewer subscriptions. So an area that would require 13 or more macrocells or an absurd amount of fiber optics to service a couple hundred people is perfect for StarLink.
The equation will change a lot if or when Falcon Heavy starts operating though. Then we will be able to blot out the stars with relatively inexpensive satellites. But I foresee StarLink using ground cells in denser areas anyways to reduce space traffic since you can't just cluster the satellites over a specific area. Probably they will just rent out the nodes to existing providers to expand cell coverage.