I found this info on one of the other technical space forums. I Googled a few articles to check the costs for satellites and it all appeared accurate. The info below would indicate a significant cost advantage for SpaceX Starlink over Viasat 3 and OneWeb.
A little comparison of capacity costs between
Viasat, OneWeb, and Starlink:
-Viasat 2 has a throughput of 260 GBps, and had a cost of $600 million, giving an installed capacity cost of ~$2,300,000/GBps.
-Viasat 3 satellites are expected to cost around $700m total per satellite (including launch cost), and have an impressive capacity of 1TBps. This gives an installed capacity cost of ~$700,000/GBps for the next gen Viasat 3.
-OneWeb satellites have a throughput of 8 GBps and have a cost target of $500k per satellite, launched on Soyuz gives a per-satellite launch cost of $2.5m. Put all of these together and you have an installed of around ~$300,000/GBps. If you factor in the lower possible capacity factor from time over the ocean, this is not much better than what Viasat 3 should be able to do.
-Starlink satellites have an estimated launch + manufacturing cost of about $500k, with the launch costing more than the satellites. With a throughput of 20 GBps, this gives and installed capacity cost of ~$25,000/GBps. Now, since the launch cost dominates the total cost, adding Starship to the picture should more than halve this. They are currently producing satellites at annual rate of around 1,500 per year... quadruple this (which is what you'd need to do to get a 30,000 satellite constellation), and I see no reason that Starlink's installed cost shouldn't drop below $10,000/GBps.
In short, $/GBps installed:
$2,300,000 Viasat 2
$700,000 Viasat 3
$300,000 OneWeb phase 1
$10,000 Starlink w/Starship
EchoStar HughesNet with their Jupiter-3 satellite at 500 Gbps has even worse financial metrics than Viasat 3.