News
SpaceX’s internet satellite strategy faces possible setback (Correction: It’s actually in great shape)
Correction: Upon further analysis of FCC filings and proposed updates to ITU regulations, SpaceX’s Internet constellation is on much steadier ground than it initially appeared to be, and the FCC decision made on September 26 2017 to update its NGSO FSS regulations is likely to help SpaceX far more than it might harm the company.
The ITU has since 2015 taken a stance that aligns more with the FCC’s cooperative spectrum sharing policy and did not intend for Part 5 of its Radio Regulations to be interpreted as a “first come, first serve” attitude. Specifically, the ITU’s 2017 Rules of Procedure pointedly state in Article 9.6 (Word document download) that those rules were not intended “to state an order of priorities for rights to a particular orbital position” and that “the [interference] coordination process is a two way process”. An ex parte filed with the FCC (PDF download) by SpaceX on September 15 stated SpaceX’s support for these international and domestic policy adoptions, as well as the FCC International Bureau’s responsive consideration of SpaceX’s own suggestions.
The company’s first two test satellites could still launch later this year
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) responded September 7th to requests for modification to existing satellite communications regulations and FCC practices from a number of prospective constellation operators, including OneWeb, Telesat, and SpaceX.
The FCC ultimately decided to avoid one major rule change that could force SpaceX to completely reconsider its strategic approach to its proposed Low Earth Orbit broadband constellation.
To grossly oversimplify, SpaceX had requested that the FCC apply their non-interference rules for lower orbit communications satellites to internet constellations operating both inside and outside the physical United States. These rules require that communication satellites operating in non-geostationary orbits (NGSO) share the available wireless spectrum equally among themselves when two or more satellites pass within a certain distance of each other relative to ground stations. In simpler terms, consider your smartphone’s cellular connectivity. The FCC’s rule for satellites in lower orbits can be thought of like multiple smartphones using the same cell tower to access the internet: the cell tower simply acknowledges the multiple devices it needs to serve and allows each device a certain amount of bandwidth.
-->However, the FCC is admittedly a domestic Commission focused on administering communications rules and regulations in the United States, and an agency already exists for coordinating global communications needs, called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The ITU’s Radio Regulations are considerably more simplistic. Rather than the FCC’s more nuanced and reasonable methods of spectrum sharing, the ITU allows the first satellite operator actively using a certain orbit or spectrum to become the primary coordinator for all interference issues. Put more simply, it gives those who launch communications satellites first a “first come, first serve” advantage that lets those entities then set the rules for interference with their constellation.
-
- In these figures, SpaceX attempts to demonstrate the significance of cooperation between different satellite constellation operators. (SpaceX/FCC)
-
- Compared to the first figure, interference events while sharing data on satellite locations is almost nonexistent. (SpaceX/FCC)
Both OneWeb and Telesat, companies also interested in launching global broadband constellations, are licensed in countries other than the United States, meaning that the FCC has given the ITU precedent in deciding how to deal with SpaceX’s potential constellation interference. SpaceX’s proposed constellation of at least several thousand satellites ends up being at a distinct disadvantage simply because it would take far longer for SpaceX to even partially complete its constellation when compared with competitors like OneWeb, who expect to finish launching the first phase of their constellation several hundred satellites by the end of 2020. Under the ITU’s regulations, SpaceX could be forced by competitors to effectively step on eggshells around their constellations by avoiding interference to the furthest extent possible, rather than simply sharing spectrum in the brief periods where different satellites temporarily interfere with each other.
While the FCC’s choice to cede international interference coordination to the ITU is a huge blow to SpaceX’s proposed internet constellation efforts, the same September 7th report also eased a handful of other requirements that would have proven difficult for SpaceX’s massive constellation. For geostationary constellations, the FCC previously required that all satellites be launched within a period of six years, with failure to do so resulting in a revoked license for the company in question. In a small concession to SES, O3b, and SpaceX, the FCC now plans to require that 50% of lower orbit satellite constellations be launched within six years of receiving an FCC license. This would still be a massive challenge for SpaceX’s plan of 4,425 initial satellites and a follow-up constellation of more than 7,000 additional satellites (PDF download).
-
- Falcon 9 lands on drone ship JRTI after launching Formosat-5, August 2017. (SpaceX)
-
- 2017 saw SpaceX recovery 10 Falcon 9 first stages, 5 by sea. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon 9 B1040 returns to LZ-1 after the launch of the USAF’s X-37B spaceplane. (SpaceX)
The FCC’s September 7th report will not become final unless it is passed by vote in a September 26th Open Commission Meeting. It is possible that SpaceX council will make a statement protesting the FCC’s decision, but it is nevertheless likely that the FCC’s report will be accepted and become official. While the LEO internet constellation has remained a low priority for SpaceX since it was revealed in 2015, the company has steadily continued work on the project and SpaceX has every reason to continue pursuing it given the potential profit margins it could produce. In spite of the now expanded difficulties lying ahead, SpaceX appears to be preparing for the first launch of two test satellites related to its internet constellation efforts. The move is seen as a likely attempt to tag along as passengers during SpaceX’s launch of PAZ, a Spanish earth imaging satellite, during the final three months of 2017.
Elon Musk is scheduled to reveal more details on SpaceX’s Mars exploration and colonization efforts on September 29th. He has stated that this presentation will focus more on the “how” of colonizing Mars, revealing how exactly SpaceX thinks it can fund the development of its Interplanetary Transport System. Musk also confirmed several weeks ago that SpaceX had reduced the size of the ITS rocket to a still-massive diameter of 9 meters, and sources inside the company have also indicated that the company is thinking about modifying its LC-39A Florida launch pad to support both Falcon and ITS vehicles. SpaceX recruiters revealed earlier this week that SpaceX also intends to have their Boca Chica, Texas launch pad, which is currently under construction, be capable of eventually launching ITS-sized vehicles once it comes online in 2019 or later.
-->
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
-->It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
-->The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
-->News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
