News
SpaceX Starlink job posting signals serious interest in a growing multi-billion dollar market
A new SpaceX Starlink job posting hints that the company is very interested in an established multi-billion dollar market for high-quality satellite internet – a use-case its Starlink constellation should be a perfect fit for.
One of the biggest sources for a recent boom in global demand for satellite broadband services, in-flight connectivity (IFC) is a rapidly growing market well on its way to multi-billion dollar annual revenues within the next few years. Almost anyone with any experience traveling by air is likely familiar with the promises and pitfalls offered by in-flight WiFi, which can often feel extremely convenient and futuristic while still bringing up old memories of DSL internet and flip-phones. Arguably, most – if not all – of the downsides of modern in-flight connectivity and the patchwork addition of onboard servers carrying limited offline entertainment options are caused by technical limitations in the existing IFC ‘pipeline’.
Meanwhile, SpaceX is just a few months into the years-long process of manufacturing and launching a vast constellation of thousands of Starlink internet satellites, designed to blanket every inch of the Earth with high-quality internet service. With internal goals stretching as high as ~40,000 satellites, Starlink could one day offer enough bandwidth to singlehandedly satisfy the internet needs of hundreds of millions – if not billions – of customers worldwide. In the interim, however, how and where SpaceX chooses to commercially deploy its nascent constellation will be critical in its first few years of operations, and in-flight connectivity is one such place where Starlink could theoretically crush existing options and come to dominate the growing market.
A few days ago, SpaceX published its first job posting exclusively dedicated to “aeronautical terminals”, referring to a type of Starlink user terminals (an antenna and associated hardware) optimized for installation on aircraft fuselages. Thanks to an almost $29 million Starlink contract awarded by the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) contract in 2018, SpaceX has already built and successfully tested aeronautical terminal prototypes on military aircraft, with even more ambitious tests soon to come. As such, it would be reasonable to assume than a new job posting for such terminals would be focused on SpaceX’s military work.
Instead, SpaceX’s February 21st listing explicitly refers to the new position as an opportunity to “[certify] Starlink aeronautical terminals [for] commercial and business jet aircraft…[and] play a critical role in deploying an industry-changing In-Flight Communications (IFC) service”, unequivocally confirming the company’s interest in entering the broader IFC market.
While SpaceX has already launched an incredible 240 Starlink v1.0 satellites in the last two months alone, the company has yet to reveal any specific information about the user terminals customers will use to connect to the orbiting network. Earlier this year, CEO Elon Musk did briefly mention that the terminal would look like a “thin, flat, round UFO on a stick”, while COO and President Gwynne Shotwell stated last year that the terminal would be “beautiful” at Musk’s request. Aside from those comments and a few even older ones, the no-less-critical Starlink component remains a bit of a mystery, although we do know that SpaceX intends to mass produce millions of the devices itself.
Still, SpaceX has made it clear that it’s already testing terminals with some success, noting late last year that it managed to deliver bandwidth of ~610 megabits per second (Mbps) to a US military aircraft through a single flight-optimized terminal. That testing was performed with 60 ‘v0.9’ satellites, meaning that all Starlink satellites launched after May 2019 should be able to offer even more bandwidth thanks to the addition of higher-capacity ‘Ka-band’ antennas.
While much is still unknown, the available details paint a fascinating picture of Starlink’s potential in the IFC market. Driven by unprecedentedly ambitious and strict cost targets, SpaceX already builds, owns, and operates its own Falcon rockets, Starlink satellites, and (soon) Starlink terminals – including variants optimized for consumer, aeronautical, and ground station use. In short, SpaceX is building the most vertically-integrated space-based service in the history of commercial space.
What can effectively be considered a very early pre-alpha of the Starlink satellites, terminals, and network has already demonstrated the ability to deliver bandwidth of more than 600 Mbps to a single in-flight aircraft, at least five times better than the best solutions currently available (~100 Mbps). Thanks to their location in low Earth orbit (LEO), Starlink satellites will also be able to offer latency (the gap between when you click and when something happens) as good as or better than what most people have access to on the ground.
By building and owning every critical aspect of the complex pipeline needed for its Starlink network, SpaceX has full control from start to finish. With Falcon 9 rockets and Starlink satellites, this has meant that SpaceX can reach cost targets that are up to several times cheaper than competing solutions and do so while meeting or beating their technical capabilities. With in-flight connectivity, the rockets, satellites, terminals, and ground infrastructure needed to create a functional network all factor heavily into the prices that can be offered to end-users and as of 2020, there simply isn’t an IFC provider on Earth in a position to compete with the level of vertical integration SpaceX may be able to offer.
If SpaceX can launch several thousand satellites and figure out how to affordably mass-produce unprecedentedly high-performance terminals (still up for debate), it’s safe to say that Starlink is going to run through existing IFC providers like a brick wall. Aside from potentially beating them on cost, Starlink – offering perhaps 600-1000+ Mbps per plane – could theoretically allow 100-200 airline passengers to simultaneously stream videos, browse the web, and even game in flight as if they were on the ground. Existing providers are physically incapable of competing with something like that without extensive infrastructure upgrades.
According to Satellite Markets & Research, the annual revenue of passenger aircraft IFC broke $1 billion for the first time in 2018 and the overall market is expected to be worth at least $36 billion (~$3.5B/year) from 2019 to 2029. Major provider Inmarsat estimates that the IFC market could be worth up to $15 billion annually by 2035. With a bit of luck, SpaceX could easily secure a major portion of that pot within just a handful of years.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
