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.
Elon Musk
Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Tesla is starting the process of removing the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, as it pulled the purchase option in the United States over the weekend.
However, there has been some indication by CEO Elon Musk that the price of the subscription will increase as the suite becomes more robust. But Tesla finds itself in an interesting situation with this: the take rate for Full Self-Driving at $99 per month is about 12 percent, and Musk needs a significant increase in this rate to reach a tranche in his new compensation package.
This leaves Tesla and owners in their own respective limbos: Tesla needs to find a price that will incentivize consumers to use FSD, while owners need Tesla to offer something that is attractive price-wise.
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Price Reduction
Although people are willing to pay the $99 per month for the FSD suite, it certainly is too high for some owners. Many suggested that if Tesla would back down the price to $49, or somewhere around that region, many owners would immediately subscribe.
Others suggested $69, which would make a lot of sense considering Musk’s obsession with that number.
Different Pricing for Supervised and Unsupervised
With the release of the Unsupervised version of Full Self-Driving, Tesla has a unique opportunity to offer pricing for different attention level requirements.
$50/mo for supervised.
$300/mo for unsupervised including insurance.— pɦoɿɟ pᴉʌɒp (@CSUDavid) February 15, 2026
Unsupervised Full Self-Driving would be significantly more expensive, but not needed by everyone. Many people indicate they would still like to drive their cars manually from time to time, but others said they’d just simply be more than okay with only having Supervised FSD available in their cars.
Time-Based Pricing
Tesla could price FSD on a duration-based pricing model, including Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Annual rates, which would incentivize longer durations with better pricing.
Annually, the rate could be $999 per year, while Monthly would stay at $99. However, a Daily pass of FSD would cost somewhere around $10, while a $30 per week cost seems to be ideal.
These all seem to be in line with what consumers might want. However, Tesla’s attitude with FSD is that it is the future of transportation, and with it offering only a Monthly option currently, it does not seem as if it will look as short-term as a Daily pass.
Tiered Pricing
This is perhaps the most popular option, according to what we’ve seen in comments and replies.
This would be a way to allow owners to pick and choose which FSD features they would like most and pay for them. The more features available to you, the more it costs.
For example, if someone only wanted Supervised driving and Autopark, it could be priced at $50 per month. Add in Summon, it could be $75.
This would allow people to pick only the features they would use daily.
Tesla has left a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright. On Sunday, the option officially disappeared from the Online Design Studio in the United States, as Tesla transitioned to a Subscription-only purchasing plan for the FSD suite.
However, there is still one way to get the Full Self-Driving suite in an outright manner, which would not require the vehicle owner to pay monthly for the driver assistance program — but you have to buy a Model S or Model X.
Months ago, Tesla launched a special “Luxe Package” for the Model S and Model X, which included Full Self-Driving for the life of the vehicle, as well as free Supercharging at over 75,000 locations, as well as free Premium Connectivity, and a Four-Year Premium Service package, which includes wheel and tire protection, windshiel protection, and recommended maintenance.
🚨 Tesla increased the price of both the Model S and Model X by $10,000, but both vehicles now include the “Luxe Package,” which includes:
-Full Self-Driving
-Four years of included maintenance, tire and wheel repairs, and windshield repairs/replacements
-Free lifetime… pic.twitter.com/LKv7rXruml— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 16, 2025
It would also be available through the purchase of a Cyberbeast, the top trim of the Cybertruck lineup.
This small loophole would allow owners to avoid the monthly payment, but there have been some changes in the fine print of the program, as Tesla has added that it will not be transferable to subsequent vehicle owners or to another vehicle.
This goes for the FSD and the Supercharging offers that come with the Luxe Package.
For now, Tesla still has the Full Self-Driving subscription priced at $99 per month. However, that price is expected to increase over the course of some time, especially as its capabilities improve. Tesla seems to be nearing Unsupervised FSD based on Musk’s estimates for the Cybercab program.
There is the potential that Tesla offers both Unsupervised and Supervised FSD for varying prices, but this is not confirmed.
In other countries, Tesla has pushed back the deadline to purchase the suite outright, as in Australia, it has been adjusted to March 31.
News
Tesla Sweden’s port deal sparks political clash in Trelleborg
The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition.
Tesla Sweden’s lease agreement at the Port of Trelleborg has triggered a political dispute, with local leaders divided over whether the municipally owned port should continue renting space to the electric vehicle maker amidst its ongoing conflict with the IF Metall union.
Tesla Sweden’s recently extended contract with the Port of Trelleborg has triggered calls for greater political oversight of future agreements.
Tesla has used the Port of Trelleborg to import vehicles into Sweden amid a blockade by the Transport Workers’ Union, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). By routing cars via trucks on passenger ferries, the company has maintained deliveries despite the labor dispute. Vehicles have also been stored and prepared in facilities leased from the municipal port company.
The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition. Initially, the Port of Trelleborg hinted that it would not enter into new agreements with Tesla, but it eventually opted to renew its existing contract with the EV maker anyway.
Lennart Höckert, an opposition councilor, described the port’s decision as a “betrayal of the Swedish model,” arguing that a municipally owned entity should not appear to side with one party in an active labor dispute.
“If you want to protect the Swedish model, you shouldn’t get involved in a conflict and help one of the parties. When you as a company do this, it means that you are actually taking a position and making things worse in an already ongoing conflict,” Höckert said.
He added that the party now wants politicians to review and approve future rental agreements involving municipal properties at the port.
The proposal has been sharply criticized by Mathias Andersson of the Sweden Democrats, who chairs the municipal board. In comments to local media, Andersson described the Social Democrats’ approach as “Kim Jong Un-style,” arguing that political leaders should not micromanage a company governed by its own board.
“I believe that the port should be run like any other business,” Andersson said. He also noted that operational decisions fall under the authority of the Port of Trelleborg’s board instead of elected officials.
Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms
Tesla leaves a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright
