Starlink. You'd have 150 Mbps or so with that open sky.
Starlink is rapidly destroying the night sky.
I like to camp in Dark Sky areas, and nowadays, one can never escape the constant intrusion of satellites traversing the sky at night. They're approaching making long-exposure photography of the night sky impossible.
For the same reason, Starlink is impacting ground-based astronomy at the professional level as well. Note that ground-based astronomy is the preferred way to observe the Universe (space-based telescopes will never come close to matching the resolution of modern ground-based telescopes).
There are currently ~ 17,000 satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), 70% of which are from Starlink. Musk has stated his goal of having 40,000-50,000 Starlink satellites in orbit within the next few years (he's actually suggested launching an additional
one million satellites for use in space-based AI, but I think even Musk himself knows that this is just boastful posturing on his part).
There is something called the Kessler syndrome, which states that at some point, the number of satellites in LEO will render space travel impossible. In other words, once the Kessler syndrome is in effect, humans will be trapped to the Earth's surface
forever. Even at 17,000 satellites, the sheer number of objects and debris currently in orbit is already creating existential threats for present-day spacecraft and space stations. One estimate for the Kessler syndrome's threshold is 72,000 satellites, although there are other estimates that place this threshold at much lower values, e.g., 45,000 satellites.
IMO, Starlink and the growing number of satellites from other companies represent a real threat for what amounts to environmental genocide. I don't think less of people who use Starlink, but I myself can't recommend Starlink with a clear conscience.
