There are two broad use-cases for this.
1. Redundancy. You have an existing internet connection, so you can compare the data you get from other nodes to the blockstream data. You'll be aware if someone attempts to sybil attack you, and you have a backup block source if your IP blocks Bitcoin.
2. Remote installation. If you don't have an internet connection, having a possibly censored satellite connection is still better than no internet connection at all.
Remember, it's not like like an ISP where they can single out a receiver to target with different data. All receivers collecting signals from a satellite receive the same data.
Counter-argument, it's a good way to maybe tell if someone is messing with your Internet and keep you from receiving a block over land lines.
Fundamentally they are switching out the media at layer 1, and I know they think they're swapping out layer 2 and 3 (LAN and Internet) but probably satellites are also MPLS switched just as the Internet actually is deep down.
(So I think their hopes that a satellite link would survive something like a SQL Slammer type UDP driven attack against the whole Internet is funny.)
But I think that smaller regional problems, like when a Pakistani ISP blacked out YouTube my mucking with BGP tables, that this satellite thing could be useful for that kind of scenario - some kind of basic circa 1 day regional outage of the Internet.
If they decide to omit blocks, their service becomes untrustworthy. You only have to mess up once to ruin your reputation.
We will not entirely depend on satellite broadcasts, but rather use it as just one more alternative for those that cannot access the internet in remote areas.
And censoring developing areas is a stupid idea if your company innovates in that field.