I very much agree with the thematic sentiment you shared that leaving certain rural folks in the dust because they can't hit an arbitrary 100mbps down (but mayb

I very much agree with the thematic sentiment you shared that leaving certain rural folks in the dust because they can't hit an arbitrary 100mbps down (but maybe could get 20mbps instead) is a flaw in this whole program. But note that other more capable providers can bid on those census blocks now that Starlink is in default. > Do you actually have reason to think they're maxing out potential bandwidth right now in 12-18 GHz or 26.5-40 GHz right now vs that being a tech limitation that will be improved with better phased arrays and bigger sats like v2.0? I do think its a tech limitation, yes. The capacity limitations in many new RF solutions are unrelated to the theoretical max of any of those bands (re: Shannon limit). As to whether the that can be improved, that depends on where the bottle necks are. I brought up the mac layer note for that reason, I don't know that they're enveloping ethernet frames over that link, but if they are - what is the strategy there? TDMA? CDMA? There's just not a ton of public information out there to make a deductively valid argument that the FCC should expect it to improve. (EDIT: Realized that I didn't convey my point well. It is a tech limitation imposed by the physical limitations of the medium itself. No matter how much spectrum you have, you still need a modulation scheme to allow for multiplexing over that spectrum. There are limitations there where the implementation details really do matter.)