You're right, I should have explained better. If you take a look at many of the other satellites announced that don't get the same hype as SpaceX, you'll notice that they're comparable capacity, or have lower advertised capacity with other tradeoffs. SES mPOWER, viasat-3, and Jupiter 3 to name a few. The companies that stick to GEO satellites maintain that LEO satellites waste a lot of capacity over water, and there's nothing you can do about that. Not only water, but underserved areas that can't afford satellite technology are also included in this. Depending on the numbers you look at, this could mean the effective capacity of the satellite is ~10% of what is advertised.
The other issue with LEO is that if you want to double your satellite capacity, you need to launch twice as many than you currently have in the sky, instead of just one or two more large ones. This presents logistical problems, and technical as well to some extent.
When people typically refer to GEO satellites, they're unfairly making the assumption that the old crop of GEO satellites are where technology is today; namely fixed, low-capacity satellites. This is not the case. With the HTS (High-throughput satellites) and XTS (Extreme throughput satellites) that have movable capacity, not only do you have a comparable amount of usable capacity to LEO, but you can also move it as business needs change. The latency issue will never change, but if you see my other comments, I'm skeptical they'll be able to achieve the latency everyone is quoting.