That's not true. The biggest problem with other satellite internet is ping, which has nothing to do with # of users (it's just that geostationary is really far away). Starlink satellites are 100x closer (so 10000x stronger signal), and there are well over 100x as many starlink satellites, so Starlink has roughly 1 million times the capacity as the other satellite internet providers.
Signal strength and channel bandwidth are only partially related.
You could blast out a 100Hz-BW CW signal at 1MW, but you will not be able to send much on it, even if you can receive it from the Moon.
There are other limits too, like channel concurrency, which you can see in action in places like busy stations or stadia where your phone can't connect and your Bluetooth headphones become unreliable. I don't know how many simultaneous connections a single Starlink transceiver can handle, though.
it looks like their previous satellites (v1.0) were 18Gbps. I haven't found anything for v1.5 which is currently deployed, or v2.0 which theoretically are starting to launch this year.
based on the plans they are selling, it almost certainly can do both 40 users at 500mbps and 200 users at 100mbps. This is a total guess, but I'd imagine it can probably do 2000 users at 10mpbs, since 10:1 over-subscription is pretty common for ISPs.
no, it's not. streaming media is the vast majority of internet traffic, and it doesn't care at all about your latency.
your capacity math is so far off it's just crazy. if they had a million times the capacity of current satellites they would have around 250 petabits per second.
> No Hard Data Limits††
>
> If you exceed your plan data, we won't cut you off or charge you more. Stay connected at reduced speeds, typically 1-3 Mbps.
Are they, though? (Seriously, I once looked at them, and promptly concluded that unless I wanted to give up streaming video and pulling docker images, there was no point since I'd blow through the data cap in a week or two.)
