OP said "where people couldn't get more than 10/2 or so for any price."

Your response directly refutes that, so I don't know why you are asking for a source. I didn't say either of those are competitive with a non-existent service offering from starlink. Wait until they have a real service that is oversubscribed, then we can discuss what plans they'll offer.

Hughesnet and other geostationary providers have 400+ Latency that are rather terrible.

Again, OP was talking about speeds, not latency. Nobody is going to refute geo has higher latency than Leo.

400+ms pings make the connection useless for anything resembling interactive use, which is pertinent.

If my internet provider had 100mbs symmetric but I got that kind of ping I wouldn't even consider it a functioning internet connection, let alone 100 mbs, even if in some theoretical tuned workload I could actually move data that fast (UUCP with tuned TCP window sizes? UDP with some sort of custom packet loss recovery algo?)

I'm not sure why you keep going down this rabbit hole, but OP was talking about bandwidth, not latency. Bandwidth on current generation satellites is just as high, or higher than Starlink. Satellite does not use TCP over the air. They have technologies for higher-latency links that make latency appear lower by controlling the window at the gateway side.