No, it's like claiming your old 2G cell phone is proof that 5G cell phone technology works [it uses a phased array setup], and is an economically viable solution/businesses, which is absurd. And ping times are specifically the issue here as to why satellite internet was categorically excluded from the higher tiers.

Geostationary satellites are "fixed" in position which means the user can utilize a relatively inexpensive parabolic dish, and the result is they have limited bandwidth and incredibly slow ping times [ie, many users would argue it really doesn't work as a broadband solution by modern standards]

To solve the ping time issue, the altitude is lowered, which not only requires a lot more LEO satellites, but to have sufficient bandwidth it requires the user have a tracking parabolic dish or a phased array antenna, and commercially available dishes/terminals are unjustifiably expensive.

So no... the existence of a rather limited GEO satellite internet solution does not tell you that you that the technology is there to make satellites and user antennas significantly cheaper, and that the resulting solution when scaled up is economical enough for a viable business. We have many examples of constellations going bankrupt.

In no way am I saying Starlink won't work, and I think the FCC excluding them from even demonstrating their tech was suitable was absurd, my response is simply that your statement that GEO satellite internet is a proof of concept is nowhere near sufficient.

The irony here is the slow ping times is specifically the reason satellite internet was excluded, and here you are trying to use it as a reason to say the technology works.