Hi there, great questions. The satellites are spec'd to deliver the same power (EIRP) on the ground as traditional large GEO's, with each of our satellites having a fraction of the capacity. This is a key point-- it will take several of our satellites to do the same job as one traditional large GEO. But that's not only ok, it's much better. It means we can put up a smaller chunk of capacity as needed and not do the "all or nothing" approach of a large GEO.

The high capacity satellites do have insufficient bandwidth to serve demand, on that I agree. But that's not a spectrum limitation, its a limitation on how many such large GEO's have been launched. Which is a small number because each one is so expensive. There is still plenty more spectrum we can use for GEO telecoms, and more with proper frequency re-use schemes.

The point you make about the drive to large GEO's holds true if you assume only one spacecraft will ever be in a single orbital slot. But that's not the case. There's plenty of orbital slots where multiple GEOs are co-located, and this will increasingly be the case in the future. I'd argue the drive to large satellites was more driven by various incentives and systemic issues in the industry that drove them that direction. A much longer conversation, but it's things that can all be fixed.

And to answer your last question, because our satellites are spec'd to provide the same EIRP on the ground, the ground terminals used are the same as those in use today for GEO telecoms. These terminals are all off-the-shelf and very low-cost compared to the terminals necessary for a LEO-based network.