Sadly, in most of the rural US. My other options are 12Mbps fixed wireless, 1-100Mbps cellular, or 3Mbps DSL which AT&T stopped selling in violation of various government contracts.

Starlink in practice is 10-200Mbps. Here's their specifications: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1138-34130-60

Rural Canada. On a lake shore. 30km from one of Canada's "Top 50" cities.

Where I used to live, I had 2 options for internet access. A Wireless ISP that uses a parabolic antenna pointed at a water-tower about ~20km from my home; or a cell-phone based internet connection.

The WISP allowed me on average 300kb/s transmissions. The Cell-Phone allowed me between 1.5Mb/s and 7Mb/s (to a max use of 5GB/month).

So 50Mb/s is an incredible upgrade.

An actual 50 Mbps link is perfectly good for most use cases, you can stream anything and it is not really a bottleneck in determining how quickly pages load. Large file transfers may still take appreciable time, but it is rarely a big issue.

An advertised "50 Mbps" mobile connection is dog food if you are used to 50 Mbps fiber. You are lucky if you get 20 Mbps through, though it can be much less. Worst part is all the packet loss that cause inconsistent latency and speed.

In most places where you can't economically get a fiber. That is, in most places outside dense urban cores. They are petty numerous in the US.

I'm on 50mbps and 99% of the time it's too fast for my needs. I've lived on 10mbps capped 4g for a month and I didn't notice any problems either

Anything that allows video communication/streaming is "great" imho, it certainly is more than enough for most people.

Here where I've been on 1.5 Mbps for 15 years and there is literally no other alternative. No cell coverage. No cable. Mountain blocks GEOsat. Copper is a 6 mile run to nearest town so DSL is out too. Also, I'm literally 12 miles from the Googleplex. Yeah, broadband is a mess outside of cities and suburbs.

Almost everywhere in Germany.

all of rural America....