Author here. This is definitely something some WISPs are worried about. It's likely that Starlink will take a lot of the most rural customers. WISPs can also be very successful in more suburban environments, and can speeds much higher than Starlink can provide in suburbia (300-500mbps) at a lower cost, so there will probably be a place for WISPs at least until there is no gap between fiber availability and Starlink as the best option.

Also, a lot of WISPs have started running fiber in rural areas, so that's another way they can stay relevant.

How does Starlink hold up to adverse weather conditions? That's where I believe the big separation comes from, especially in rainy areas.

starlink is in no way a competitor to a modern ISP, on a modern ISP it's normal to have >=1Gbit and more than 10 times less of a latency compared to starlink, and the maximum potential userbase for starlink is a fraction of internet userbase

I work for a WISP. It is not common to have >=1Gbit and 10 times less latency compared to starlink.

We should chat! (Author here.) Email is in my profile. It'd be cool to have a hangout with a bunch of the WISP folks from Hacker News.

oh, my bad, i did open the link, but jumped straight to marketing section(since it was my point of interest) and somehow assumed it was about local small ISP's, with wireless it's not that simple, yes.

But still, it's mind blowing how horrible ISP's in US are, you would think if in some third world countries it's accessible, everyone in US should have it.

Starlink only has permission for 5 million user terminals at the moment.

That's a lot? Something like 120m US households, so it's nearly 5% penetration.

it's nothing to laugh at, but at the same time would i consider an isp with 5% penetration to be rather small or insignificant in the greater sheme.