I think you need to add US regulatory and political considerations when considering the liability of targeting consumers versus business. In the US, rural users are over-represented in congress and are by far the biggest beneficiaries of Starlink (vs other available options). In my area, I can only WFH because of Starlink, so you better be sure that I contact my swing state Representatives and Senators anytime I hear about something that might negatively impact Starlink service.
Although it's reasonable to ask whether Starlink is charging enough. Of course, I'd be the first to admit that it comes from a privileged position to state that I'd pay a lot to be able to live with decent Internet access somewhere that I wouldn't otherwise be able to.
Personally, I'd be willing to pay more for Starlink, but that willingness is capped by the price of unlimited 4G plans in my area.
From a business perspective, I suspect that the number of potential consumers living (at the moment) in areas with wireless ISPs and no wired ISPs is quite a bit larger than than areas with no wireless ISP. However, with time, I suspect that WFH and Starlink will encourage some people to move farther out from current infrastructure and they will be almost entirely dependent on Starlink, since HughesNet and other geostationary satellite internet providers aren't really comparable in bandwidth or latency.
