News
FCC reversal $885.5M Starlink award has no lawful basis, commissioner says
A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner, Brenden Carr, called out the FCC for denying Starlink’s $885.5 million infrastructure award. The FCC said that funding the network of Starlink satellites wouldn’t be the best use of limited broadband subsidies.
FCC Chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel said that the technology had real promise but that the FCC couldn’t afford to “subsidize ventures that are not delivering the promised speeds or are not likely to meet program requirements.”
Commissioner Carr highly disagreed with this move and shared his thoughts about it on Twitter. He said that its decision to reverse the $885 million infrastructure award was not only concerning, but done without legal justification. And it would leave rural Americans “waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide.”
The FCC’s 2020 award to Starlink secured a deal for the delivery of high-speed Internet service to 642,925 unserved locations.
But the FCC just vaporized that commitment and replace it with… nothing. That’s a decision to leave families on the wrong side of the digital divide.
— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) August 24, 2022
In his statement, Commissioner Carr said that he was surprised to find out by an FCC press release that reversed the $885.5 million infrastructure award that SpaceX had won in 2020. He said that this move mirrored the agency’s “broader set of missteps by costing taxpayer dollars while leaving rural communities behind.”
Commissioner Carr wrote,
“As an initial matter, this is a very curious outcome because the reasons the agency offers for backtracking on this infrastructure decision do not withstand even casual scrutiny. Indeed, the reversal constitutes clear error and plainly exceeds agency authority.”
“First, the FCC’s announcement claims that the agency is acting to ‘avoid extensive delays in providing the needed service to rural areas.’ Yet, that is exactly the outcome that this decision ensures. The FCC’s 2020 award to Starlink secured a commitment for the delivery of high-speed internet service to 642,925 unserved rural homes and businesses across 35 states. By reversing course, the FCC has just chosen to vaporize that commitment and replace it with…nothing. That’s a decision to leave families waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide when we have the technology to get them high-speed service today.”
Commissioner Carr also said that the agency’s excuse that Starlink’s technology is “risky” and “still developing, has no bearing. He noted that the FCC’s own speed testing data shows that Starlink’s speed has “increased significantly year over year.”
He further called the skepticism that the FCC showed “odd” since it is in “direct conflict with the confidence expressed by the other components of the federal government–including the Air Force, which just inked a nearly $2 million deal with Starlink to deliver high-speed Internet service to military bases.”
The FCC criticized Starlink’s pricing and Commissioner Carr also brought this up. “The agency cites Starlink’s price point in denying it this universal service award. Yet right now, the FCC is providing universal service awards for far slower internet services that cost consumers far more.”
Residents in Napakiak, Alaska, the Commissioner said, are paying hundreds of dollars every month for services supported by the FCC’s universal service awards that deliver “speeds less than 1/10th of Starlink’s.”
Commissioner Carr also said that the denial was without a lawful basis since “the 2020 Commission-level decision governing the Starlink award and similar awards did not authorize staff to deny a winning bid based on equipment price point considerations–let alone based on an arbitrary one selectively applied to one winner. As such, the denial here is without a lawful basis.”
Commissioner Carr is also concerned that the FCC’s decision will hurt taxpayers.
Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, or concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
