You're speculating as fact an awful lot here and it's making it difficult to talk about what actually is. For instance the elevation cutoff isn't arbitrary i.e. it's not "whatever number would make it work reliably at my house". It doesn't matter if a satellite is available at 15 degrees you will not have service until one is available at a higher angle. I assume you're looking at something like (or following similar logic to) https://sebsebmc.github.io/starlink-coverage/index.html and well... there's a reason that page has 2 options in the drop down - the current limit of functionality and the proposed future limit of functionality. Also I think it goes without saying if it's not fully launched where you live then where you live is a poor choice to even try to reverse engineer numbers in the first place.

I will give a list of facts about Starlink as it currently stands, not my personal speculation or speculation from others rather knowledge from currently working with operational Starlink and many fixed wireless providers in a large enterprise network:

- Path loss is not a driving factor in the density problem (more details on why in another section but it boils down to the bandwidth losses by this are not what's causing the density squeeze). The path loss is also very different than the path loss to a terrestrial tower as there is a lot more at play than distance (atmospheric density, atmospheric composition, frequency, frequency interaction with molecules in the atmosphere, power limits for interference being different for ground<->horizontal vs ground<->up) so you can't just think "more distance therefore path loss is a bigger problem than it is for fixed wireless" either.

- The cost for the service is $499 + $99 * month for a real world expected rate of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps @ 1 TB/month soft cap w/o throttling. This pricing beats >95% of fixed wireless offerings, Verizon's 5G demo cities probably being the exception. Pricing is not a problem even if there is fancy tech involved on the user terminal.

- Ground station bandwidth hasn't been a problem for Starlink, let alone an oft problem as you confidently claim. They also continue to be turned up at the same rate as new satellites go active so no need to speculate their either.

- It's quite easy to add both more towers and satellites but neither is actually a realistic solution to their respective spectral density problem as for towers density comes to the point the cost savings of using towers for the last mile in the first place go out the window and for satellites the spectral density problem is on the ground. Remember it's not going to be a fully shared collision domain like Wi-Fi where you just spread the same frequency to everyone attached in a sector.

- Both can be expected to improve drastically in the future. Starlink is barely deployed enough to function at all at the best geographical locations, many of the assigned frequencies aren't in use, satellite<->satellite still hasn't been deployed, the lower shell hasn't even been started, only a handful of ground stations are up. Similarly 5G (or the latest 4G) is still early in deployment in the US, good & cheap 5G hardware is just really becoming available at scale, network deployments are really kicking into gear.