News
Tesla and EV-only carmakers are legacy auto’s karma for killing the electric car
Karma could be a cruel mistress. It has a tendency to sneak up from behind before delivering a cruel haymaker to the jaw. Karma takes a while to rev up sometimes, but when it comes, things change, and sometimes these changes can be painful. Considering the state of the auto market, as well as the momentum carried by companies like Tesla, Lucid Motors, and Rivian, it appears that legacy carmakers are finally dealing with some well-deserved karma — for killing the electric car.
The general death of EVs amidst the emergence of the internal combustion engine during the early days of automobiles is understandable. Back then, fossil fuels presented a cheap, efficient way to travel, with vehicles like the Baker Electric and the Porsche P1 taking a very long time to charge. However, the death of the electric car that happened in the late 90s was something that is far more difficult to justify.
During the mid-90s, a modern electric vehicle was created by General Motors, and it could have been the driving force of a change in the motoring world. The vehicle, dubbed the EV1, was on the bleeding edge of tech at the time, with its three-phase alternating current induction motor and lead-acid (later changed to NiMH) battery. It had enough range for inner-city travel, it was fast, and it was sleek. But inasmuch as it was beloved by those who leased it, the EV1 was fated to meet an unfortunate demise.
In a series of events that inspired the creation of the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car,” General Motors decided to discontinue the EV1, reclaiming the car from the leasees and destroying the vehicles. Segments of the acclaimed documentary depicted customers asking GM if they could just purchase the all-electric car, with some even holding demonstrations for the EV. But despite all these efforts, GM let the EV1 die, and most, save for a few, were unceremoniously crushed.
There were many speculations surrounding the EV1’s demise. General Motors insisted that the vehicle was not commercially viable. But the trend of large, gas-guzzling SUVs that followed the EV1 in GM’s lineup contributed to rumors that the electric car was killed because it represented a potential threat to the fossil fuel industry. In a sense, the electric car did die a painful, crushing death in the 90s, and it was not until Tesla came to the picture that EVs emerged as viable alternatives to gas-powered cars once more.
And it’s not like there was no resistance to the emergence of electric cars like Tesla, either. Tesla faced and continues to face strong opposition, and if it weren’t for its dedicated team and Elon Musk’s own stubbornness and resilience, the company could have followed the same fate as the EV1. But with vehicles like the Model S changing the game and cars like the Model 3 disrupting vehicle classes that used to be dominated by the internal combustion engine, it eventually became evident that this time around, it will be far more difficult to kill the electric car.
Amidst the success of companies like Tesla, even legacy automakers are playing catch up. Vehicles like the Jaguar I-PACE and the Chevy Bolt EV are representations of this. But even with these efforts, the pace of innovation in the electric vehicle segment is fast. Companies like Tesla work like tech companies, failing fast and failing forward. And now, legacy auto does not only have Tesla to contend with. Other premier electric cars from companies that are EV-only are coming. Tesla may have put EVs back on the map, but now, more companies are joining the fray.
There’s Lucid Motors with the Air, a hyper-luxury sedan that would likely put the Mercedes S-Class in its place. There’s the Rivian R1T and R1S, which bring luxury and comfort even in places off the beaten path. Even Bollinger Motors is attacking a small niche of rock-crawling vehicles with its no-nonsense, rough-and-tough B1 and B2. These are only the tip of the iceberg as well. Veteran auto is even getting increasingly dedicated to EVs, as evidenced by Porsche’s decision to revamp its entire factory in Zuffenhausen just to get the company ready for more electric vehicles like the Taycan.
It appears that this time around, killing the electric car will not be as simple or easy as before. Unlike the early 1900s, EVs now charge fast and they go the distance, and unlike the 90s, electric cars are now being embraced by mainstream consumers. There’s a demand for them, and EVs are now being noted for their performance. Electric cars are here to stay, and every single one that gets released is additional karma to an auto industry that appears to have dug itself far too deep into fossil fuels.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
