The costly collateral damage from Elon Musk's Starlink satellite fleet

I am a huge, huge critic of Starlink. I think it's disastrous for the beauty of the night skies, while solving a problem "the long way around" unnecessarily. I am currently developing a glamping resort in a relatively remote part of an island in the Philippines. We have very little light pollution, giving us a gorgeous night sky view that is so rare to enjoy for people anymore.

At our place you can see the Milky Way on a clear night, it's amazing. I don't want his ejaculation of junk all over our beautiful night sky view. For internet? Guess what else we have in this remote, not wealthy part of the Philippines? A cell tower, a few hills away from us, newly installed. I get better data speeds there than I do in downtown Shanghai. You don't need satellites for good internet. Just run a cable out to where people are and put a tower.

I remain utterly baffled that a single nation's licensing authority has unilaterally taken a decision that so negatively affects the entire planet, and especially humankind's ability to perform fundamental science - a matter of far greater import than "faster internet access to remote places".

I say this as someone who lives in a (somewhat) remote area that may vastly benefit from precisely such coverage (assuming it's at all affordable out here in the 3rd-world by the time it eventually becomes accessible.)

> Elon Musk claimed that thanks to Starlink, anybody "will be able to watch high-def movies, play video games and do all the things they want to do without noticing speed". Thus, Musk explicitly underlines his wish to reinforce already massively energy-guzzling digital activities, such as video streaming and online video games.

WTF? Is this a real problem that climate change activists talk about?