I watched their Starlink vid: DEBUNKING : StarLink (Copyright-Cleared) - YouTube
Their comparison of Starlink with competitive internet services seemed ill-informed.
They talked about ping times, but said it only mattered to gamers and Starlink still isn’t good enough for gaming. Other than knowing ping time does matter to gamers, I don’t know much about what is/isn’t acceptable to them.
However I do know, contra to the video, that ping matters a lot to other applications like audio and video conferencing, remote desktop, and remote system administration. The Starlink ping times are acceptable for those applications, and the other satellite services are not.
Further, the other other satellite services have a major downside that Starlink does not: severe data caps. Some of the graphics in the video even had those data caps listed, but they didn’t talk about it at all and it’s a huge practical problem for the other satellite services.
I haven’t personally used either Starlink or other satellite internet services. But I’ve read enough accounts and technical data to be pretty confident that Starlink is a legitimate and large improvement over geostationary satellite offerings, and the video is just wrong saying it’s not.
However, I say “ill-informed” rather than “biased”, because I think they also missed a pretty important fact on their side: the real competitor that matters to Starlink’s success isn’t other satellite services. It’s 4G-LTE and especially 5G Cellular. The speeds and ping times there are also good enough for audio/video conferencing, remote desktop, and remote system admin. The cellular data caps are complex, but not nearly as big a practical problem as with the geostationary satellites. In most cell plans these days you just get “deprioritized” when exceeding the data cap, which is sometimes a big deal and sometimes not, but almost always far preferable to either having no service at all or a huge extra charge which is what I understand happens with the non-Starlink satellite services.
Cellular coverage isn’t absolutely everywhere like satellite, and maybe never will be. But it’s almost everywhere on land that people who can pay Starlink’s subscription fees actually are, especially if they’re using the right equipment. And the right equipment (external antennas and boosters) is comparable in consumer purchase price to the purchase price of the Starlink dish. And the footprint of cellular is continually growing, following wherever people settle in middling numbers and lots of the gaps in between. I’ve gotten very effective internet service from lots of pretty remote “middle of nowhere” locations. Having coverage is way more common these days than not having coverage, albeit I do have above average equipment and knowledge of how radio signals propagate.
There are people for whom Starlink would be way better than any other currently available option, and niche markets like ocean boats that will never be served by cellular. But I think most of the rural and mobile broadband market already is or soon will be just as well if not better served by ground based cellular providers. And I think that’s a huge problem for the economics of Starlink. Maybe or maybe not insurmountable (I’m not taking a side) but definitely worth talking about in any critique of Starlink.