Both comments that you've made in this story have been horribly off the mark. The reason for reusable rockets is: they're cheaper than non-reusable rockets. As a result, no one can compete with SpaceX's pricing. And that other comment where you implied that SpaceX doesn't have much of a target market only demonstrates that you have no idea what the quality of internet service is outside of metropolitan areas or how many people live in those areas.
Oh, I know quite well how bad internet and mobile coverage can be outside metropolitan areas. All those areas so, well the vast majority, can be supported by terrestrial internet using either 5G or fibre. SpaceX has thus to be cheaper than those terrestrial solutions in order to compete.
Markets where satelite based solution are the only option include maritime, desaster areas, aviation and remote areas without inhabitants. Everything else, Starlink competes with, e.g., 5G. Just how competitive Starlink is, nobody outside SpaceX knows for a lack financial data. And since the use of reusable rockets only got traction when SpaceX created in-house demand for them, well, I am sceptical regarding the economic viability of it.
As I said, it can be typical Musk goal post moving, a viable business idea or a combination of those two. And by the way, Uber was cheaper than Taxis for a long time by selling a dollar for cents, and the same as Uber SpaceX has access to capital other ISPs just don't have. Doesn't mean SpaceX ia serving a market, remote areas, existing ISP are neglecting for decades by now.
I've seen people claim SpaceX is charging too much. Now you're claiming they are subsidizing launch i.e dumping to keep other launch competitors out.
In parts of Asia and Africa where SpaceX operates, they match or beat prices of competitors today. And of course they beat other sat competitors on pricing.
In the US there's parts of cities and suburbs where wired service is available but unreliable or hard capped with overages.
Reusability helps with reliability. Also allegedly helps with cost and cadence.
Kind of yes, kind of no. As with everything, their prices are a mix calculation. Meaning they charge what they can, with mass LEO launches being cheaper than high orbit scientific and government stuff. What SpaceX does in my opinion is subsidizing LEO launches using reusable rockets with Starlink launches.
You seem to completely underestimate how expensive it is to install fiber across say, the entire midwest, and completely overestimate the quality of 5G coverage/investment in the same area.
