The bottom data rate should fit best what satellite can offer the most people who only have that satellite choice as satellite would make more money selling cheap low bandwidth to the masses as opposed to just higher bandwidth to the fewer richer clients.
reducing the Image to the extreme and relying on per pixel advanced AI image remastering will be key here but at least people in villages will get a decent 360p with reasonable upscaling.

no more 240p 180p 480p or 1080p

Youtube sd 520p 440Kbit/s for 3G and low data broadband
In this codec there isn't as much reduction as in the very low version but their is more than today.

youtube 840p high sd medium low broadband
6Mbit using slightly more data for better fidelity than the equivalent today.

youtube hd 2k
This is for High Quality HD throughput. So you get a full 20Mbit/s although the codec is more efficient relative to modern AI abilities than today's codecs. The reason the data rate is higher than today is for better fidelity and to push the mid range broadband market standards up.

youtube UHD 4k, 8k ect
4k 48Mbit/s
8k 66Mbit/s to fit the broadband market better the data rate is reduced at 8k so that more people can experience it.
12 and 16k offer a better dataset for adapting the picture to a specific TV more efficiently this is for fast modern day broadband.
12k 140Mbit/s
16k 280Mbit/s
ect

This would add more capacity requirements to youtube at the high end where less content would be available at first anyway and also lowers the demands at the very low end with a marginal difference in the mid res range. However as higher capacities get cheaper this issues cost would be far outweighed by the quality relative to connection and larger consumer base.
you might say my bandwidths for the videos are not neat but neither is the dynamic of connections neither neat or linear.