Any coin can have cheap fees on-chain if there isn't sufficient demand for their usage.    

Litecoin's total blockchain size is 18.61 GB
Bitcoin's total blockchain size is 210.86 GB

If Litecoin was forced to handle the volume of traffic Bitcoin handles, there are two possible outcomes.  Either their fees wouldn't be so cheap, or their total blockchain size would be substantially larger than Bitcoin's currently is because of their shorter blocktime.  It's called supply and demand.  Maybe you should gain a better understanding of simple concepts like this before you go making inane comparisons that don't actually mean anything.



This is a positive, not a negative.  Wait for Atomic Swaps.  Litecoin might actually see more on-chain demand then.  That could be where people choose to make their micropayments.  These are the possibilities we're creating.



It doesn't need to be "faster and cheaper than all alts".  This is what you don't understand.  Bitcoin has a greater mining difficulty and total hashrate than any other network on the face of the planet.  It is therefore the most secure.  It seems that many users place a great deal of value in the security of Bitcoin and they're clearly willing to pay for it.  If you feel your transaction doesn't need as much security, you can do it off-chain, or use coins on another LN-compatible chain and then Atomic Swap back to BTC later when you need to deal with more significant sums of money.



A level so insignificant that no one cares about them.  

Go and play with your SHITECOIN if you think it's so much better, leave us in peace.