Terrestrial solutions for remote areas typically have excessive build out and maintenance costs.
Engineers will do a tradeoff and select the most suitable solution given the criteria. It's very easy to underestimate costs, particularly over the entire lifetime of the system.
Buddy, I'm an aero eng. There are lots of ways to get satellites in polar orbits.
Why didn't you look at the actual Lightspeed site from Telesat? Why would you pick a random paper? The Telesat site explains how they get coverage in polar regions.
I suggest you look up the solution that Telesat will use. I'm not involved in that project, but a quick glance shows me that the engineers involved have probably done their homework and have considered the customer base and their needs, including the need to service all regions of the country.
Yes there are such solutions, but for remote regions without infrastructure and with high build out and operating/maintenance costs for terrestrial technology, I suspect that the most cost effective solution that we can achieve in a timely fashion is probably LEO, like Lightspeed or Starlink. Particularly since Canada has half a century of experience building satellite systems.
Managing LEO debris and congestion is not an insurmountable challenge.
Geostationary satellites orbit at a height of 35,000 km. That means there's a huge lag, making the satellites unsuitable for interactive Internet, and it also means they're far away, so you need a big directional antenna to send data to them.
Starlink is awful, but you definitely don't want geostationary satellites for Internet.
Correctamundo. You can't speed up light. For low latency you need LEO, and since they don't sit still for you (8km/s roughly) you need a bunch of them in some kind of formation or constellation, so that you generally have something to connect to at any given moment, or at least a chain that can relay to ground stations.