Starlink's "Residential" option is $50; it's 100Mbit service, which is more than most people need. That's more than enough to stream 4K HDR video. It has ~20-40ms latency in rural locations, which is close to half what cable or DSL has in those locations, often. You can get free hardware with regular promos.
Do a little research before you spout off. This is cheaper, and better, than most of the world's internet. Half the cost of Africa, and you're not getting anything close to what Africa has. The few exceptions would be parts of Eastern Europe, and urban East Asia. Everywhere else is more expensive, with lower quality of service. ~140 million Americans have no ISP options at all, or only 1 archaic option (eg. 10Mbit DSL service with 100ms+ latency - I know of such places within a 20 minute drive of a moderately sized metro area).
There are huge parts of the US where starlink is vastly superior to what's available, and in many cases, the biggest barrier is the hardware cost - still a fraction of the cost of a game platform, or the cost of a TV. Multiple TVs are ubiquitous amongst the poors at this point, so I don't see why Starlink would be prohibitive.
The biggest barrier to entry is that most people don't need Internet beyond what they can get on their phone, or aren't willing to pay the $10-20/mo difference for something they don't understand. Or they're in an urban environment where they can't get signal. But for rural people or folks where their only option is CenturyLink?