I'm just not convinced the "physics of trenching and stringing cables from poles" (whatever we're taking this to mean) is cheaper and easier than wireless points popped up, either terrestrially or in space.
Let me be super clear about what I meant in my first comment.
Satellites are VERY susceptible to overcrowding, this is what I mean by physics. Co-Channel interference and Adjacent Satellite Inteference play a big role. The more signal you use the more of a problem it becomes.
Think about it like this. Your car radio, has how many available stations? Have you ever gotten multiple signals at the same time? This is all a really big problem for space based communication you just can't solve with more signal.
Don't get me wrong we can do a lot with our spectrum, but there is a limited amount and if we both want to communicate with a satellite and we live 100 feet apart, our signals will interfere much more than if we live 1000 feet apart.
I'm not saying stringing cables is cheaper, I'm saying laying fiber from hub to hub and then connecting to those hubs is cheaper if you're within 50 mile radius. Maybe cellular is cheaper, maybe a wire to your house is cheaper. It depends on how many people you have close to you.
I'm just not convinced the "physics of trenching and stringing cables from poles" (whatever we're taking this to mean) is cheaper and easier than wireless points popped up, either terrestrially or in space.