> Show me a consumer grade VSAT that's using 16APSK/32APSK... Not that it matters, but, I could. > How many Mbps is that? Not a lot. So, e.g., Viasat offers

> Show me a consumer grade VSAT that's using 16APSK/32APSK... Not that it matters, but, I could. > How many Mbps is that? Not a lot. So, e.g., Viasat offers 100 Mbps service. > the aggregate throughput capacity of a single CMTS port on a DOCSIS3 or DOCSIS3.1... Yes, you can get tons of traffic through a coax cable. There's more bandwidth and you can use higher efficiency modulations because the SINR is way better. Not sure how this is relevant, though. I'll point out, though, that plenty of people see slowdowns on their cable modem networks during peak busy times. Even these networks have their limits. > ... it becomes a very poor end user experience. Again, I think some people would disagree with you on that. > ... real world throughput needed to be a viable option for rural broadband. Because the link budgets are much better with small antennas and small tx poweer electronics, due to the LEO orbit. And the much lower latency. No doubt about the lower power electronics (vis-a-vis GEO) and the lower latency, but even so, SL's CPE is around $1,000, and the reliability through rain, wind, and snow is unknown. Setting aside the reliability question for now, I think what it really comes down to is the price vs latency trade-off. In order to be profitable, SL will have to be more expensive than traditional GEO solutions because the CPE, the ground network, and the actual constellation all cost more on a $/bit basis than GEO solutions. It will be interesting to see if the lower latency will be enough to draw consumers. The big X-Factor in all of this is how much more capital Elon can raise. He has an amazing talent for raising money and if retail investors don't care that SL is less cost-effective than other options, then it can go on for a long time.