If by “whole world” you mean the wilderness, then sure! Otherwise we’ve had no issues laying cables to any place people live, so long as it makes sense to do so.
If by "makes sense" you mean to ISP shareholders - for ISPs to take federal USF funds and never, ever deliver on the required upgrades or expansions (eg:Frontier@WV,Verizon@PA), due to regulatory capture.
I’m not going to be the one to defend the actions of a group of my least favorite companies in America, but you hit on the main point that stands up globally: where it is profitable to lay cables down. So yes, where it makes sense to shareholders.
That’s not to discount Starlink, it is a comparative advantage to be able to cover the wilderness, but that and not being an existing ISP people have had lots of experience with are its distinguishing features.
Starlink is yet another printing press, a tool to control information. It can be wielded for good and bad, just like any other technology, and it will be for both. Has the internet made the world happier? Better? By whose definition? It's certainly made many wealthier, but it's also destabilized countries, facilitated genocide, spread misinformation like nothing before. Just like any other communications technology.
The worship of tech as savior in silicon valley and its followers never ceases to amaze me. Tech is inert; has no intrinsic moral value at all.
Do you really think Starlink is not a step forward? It is realistically the only path to get the whole world access to the internet.