I'm not sure what would lead you to that conclusion. Starlink is another asymmetric service. This page[1] shows an average of 100 Mbit down and 16 up on Starlink. If they can get the upload slightly faster they would qualify for subsidies under the 100/20 definition but not under the 100/100 definition, which actually reinforces the article's point that we should not be investing public money in technologies that will not scale for future needs as I doubt Starlink will ever be able to achieve the 100+ megabit upload speeds that future businesses (and some consumers) will need. Don't get me wrong, I think Starlink is going to be an important technology for getting the most rural and hard to serve 1% of people acceptable internet service, and it will provide important competitive pressures on other ISPs, but it will never be a true substitute for fiber for the other 99% of the population.
