They are all electromagnetic radiation…

And that’s about as much similarity as they have with each other. The tech needed for each, the different types, the fact that higher frequencies behave COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY from lower frequencies, makes the rest of your statement, while not technically inaccurate, total bunk as far as what you claim.

And What I keep on saying is that it is not a true competitor to exists ISPs.

Why not? Technically if it works as proposed, it will offer gigabit speeds at cable latency. That seems to be exactly what most cable users get today. So what makes it not a true competitor. (You have provided no evidence to suggest congestion will be an issue, a fact I have debunked multiple times)

it will not replace mobile

That depends. If you are talking about mobile data usage on your phone where ever you are, no it won’t. But if you are talking about people who use mobile data as their home internet service because that’s all they have access to, then absolutely it will replace that. Bringing this up when this isn’t something I claimed is pure deflection and a strawman argument.

never mind fibre in metropolitan areas

Again, strawman, I never claimed that.

Also, in metropolitan areas, it will not take that large a percentage of people to switch to it to cause congestion.

Asserts facts not in evidence. How do you know? You know nothing about the technology or it’s proposed operation, much less the technical details of exactly how they have designed it.

Confusing a two way communication system, Internet access with a broadcast system GPS indicates a limited understanding of the problems being discussed.

GPS is not a pure broadcast system, there is some back and forth communication between the clients and satellites. But if you REALLY want to make an issue out of it, then we can also go with current geostationary satellite ISP service where multiple customers connect to ONE satellite and there is no congestion. Also, how many customers do you need to get congestion? It’s all dependent on the tech and actual usage.

Also switching satellites, and maybe ground stations is NOT mesh networking

Then you have no clue what mesh networking actually is.

indeed it is basically the same as mobile phone hand off, where switching towers may also switch the exchange the tower in use is connected to

That’s mesh networking genius. Or at least part of it.

Mesh networking in this case would be using satellite to satellite relays to connect a user to a ground station

This is no different than how any other network works. You are apparently just technologically illiterate and arguing in bad faith.

that comes with latency costs

You don’t think routing packets over hardline networks also come with latency costs? Satellite-to-satellite latency is extremely minimal because they use lasers and high frequency RF. This is no different than microwave internet service. It’s the ground-to-space and back that has higher latencies, which is mitigated by the LEO positioning of the satellites.

avoiding two satellites using the same relay satellite unless they are using different channels. Meshing will have its uses to gain coverage where satellites have users but cannot see a ground station, which also means serving low population density regions, think high northern latitudes, and the middle of the pacific.

This is literally all false.

Well how many they can launch is an open question, but low orbit satellites in particular impact launch windows, as they are obstructions to be avoided on the way to higher orbits, and when returning to Earth.

It’s not an open question. They’ve already been approved to launch that many and are now LEGALLY REQUIRED to launch them all in a set time window. Also, space is big.

Also, doubling or tripling the number is an insignificant increase when considering metropolitan areas

Facts and statistics or you are full of it.

The final consideration is launch capacity and cadence, as if the could launch ten satellites per launch, (an optimistic figure) that will require a thousand launches.

Considering they can launch 25 on the current F9 rocket, you’d be wrong.

Also, due to the use of low Earth orbit, the satellites will have short lifetimes, 5 years or so, requiring even more launches.

You’re still wrong on the launch capacity, which takes your total launch estimate down quite a bit.

Single satellite launch using the likes of stargazer would require a fleet of such vehicles, as one or two launches a week per vehicle would be a very high launch rate. Getting that number of satellites into orbit in a reasonable time is far from a solved problem.

Have you heard of a company called SpaceX? They can launch up to 25 of these satellites on one rocket currently. And they are making progress towards development of a bigger rocket that can launch more than that at one time. I’d say they’ve solved the problem. You’re out of touch.

Also, data rates offered to individual users is not the signifiant number needed to evaluate the system, and what would be a much better indicator of system capabilities is how many concurrent 4k video streams can be supported in each direction by a satellite.

Don’t you think that’s a bit arbitrary? I could say the same thing about ground based ISPs. Yet you don’t see them touting those numbers, now do you?

There is a good reason why telecoms companies have gone to undersea cable, rather than satellite, and due to bandwidth requirements, rather than costs.

Technology is constantly evolving, changing, and improving. I’m sorry you’ve been living under a rock for the past 50 years.