For the foreseeable future it's mostly physics.

The "all the time"-part is of course something that can be worked on even without changing the hardware. A simple switch on the outlet to turn it off during the night or if everybody is at work/school and thus doesn't need it would reduce power consumption a lot already.

"Fancier hardware" could also mean a timer for the outlet switch or a "smart home"-solution. This could mitigate connection time by turning the router back on before you arrive at home/wake-up.

There's a lot of potential for not having to use 100W all the time without hardware changes.

Presuming that a large part of those 100 W go to the power amps for uplink transmissions, it seems that it should be possible to make at least that part scale with how much outgoing data the terminal is actually sending. But that may require new hardware, and it may conflict with the ambition of reducing cost per unit.

I'd say 80% physics, 20% poor hardware/design.

Talking to a satellite in space through the atmosphere has a lot of attenuation. That's for the physics.

For comparison, wifi is 0.03W for 100 meters, mobile phones are 2W for 35km range. A satellite using 100W is not out of the ordinary.

There's a balance to decide on, power vs bandwidth, noting that doubling power has little effect on signal (log2). They could probably half the power for little difference in operation, but a notable difference on the bill.

It's exactly the sort of thing that should be adjustable, there could be a setting to adjust power/bandwidth/quality. Both for customers and for support.

edit: the video mentions up to 300 Mbps and up to 200W power consumption during snow (extra power to melt the snow). They have a lot of margin to reduce power while still being able to watch YouTube 4k.