News
Tesla’s more experienced rivals are strangely making way for the Model Y
Something strange is happening in the crossover EV segment. Despite beating the Tesla Model Y to the market, European all-electric SUVs appear to be making way for the Silicon Valley-made disruptor. This shows that while Tesla may be entering the lucrative crossover segment later than its rivals, it will be doing so with a vehicle that does not seem to have a lot of willing challengers.
It should be noted that the Model Y is designed to compete in the auto industry’s most cutthroat segment. Dominated by iconic, hyper-reliable vehicles like the Honda CR-V and the Toyota RAV-4, the crossover market is as lucrative as it is competitive. In a way, crossovers are usually bang-for-the-buck cars: larger and more spacious than sedans, and at a price point that does not break the bank.
The Model Y is all these things. With 75% of the vehicle being the same as the Model 3 sedan, the Model Y is coming to the market with all of Tesla’s experience in production and tech that it learned over the past years. Its performance is second to none, with its quickest variant hitting 60 mph in just 3.5 seconds. It’s also quite larger than its Model 3 siblings, as it’s capable of seating seven passengers instead of five (provided that the two people on the rear seats are small, of course).
There is no doubt that the Model Y will likely capture a lot of the EV market. Tesla is such a strong force in the EV segment that its entry in the crossover market may be embraced just as well, if not better, than the Model 3. If one were to prepare for the arrival of a competitor then, it would be a great idea to get the jump on the Model Y, beating it to the market and saturating Tesla’s target demographic before the vehicle gets released.
In this sense, Tesla’s rivals somewhat succeeded. Jaguar unveiled the I-PACE way before the wraps were taken off the Model Y. The same was true for the Audi e-tron 55. Each vehicle was released to the market before sightings of Model Y release candidates became the norm. Yet, despite the hype generated for each vehicle and their actual merits, none of these all-electric SUVs put a dent on the US’ all-electric market.
And it’s not for lack of recognition either. The Jaguar I-PACE was so well received that it literally got over 60 awards, making it one of the most highly-decorated production cars in history. The Audi e-tron got its own fair share of fans too. Consumer Reports’ initial impressions of the e-tron were highly-positive, with the organization praising the vehicle for its posh interior and its looks. CR Deputy Content Editor Jon Linkov even remarked that that contrary to the snap of acceleration in Tesla’s electric cars like the Model S, the Audi e-tron has “more of an elegant pull-away.”
Yet, despite these, both the I-PACE and the e-tron have seemingly hit a ceiling. Estimates point to Jaguar selling 2,418 I-Pace in the US this year through November, and Audi selling 4,623 e-tron SUVs. The Tesla Model 3? Around 111,650 in the same period, as per Bloomberg. These sales figures were so stark that recently, Mercedes-Benz announced that the EQC’s release in the US will be delayed by a year. In a way, it appears that two Model Y challengers failed against the Model 3, and one seemed to be all-too-willing to give way for the upcoming vehicle.
This may end up being a costly mistake, especially on Mercedes-Benz’s part. By the time the EQC arrives in the US, the Model Y will likely be on the roads. And if the Model 3’s dominance of the electric car segment is any indication, Tesla might very well be poised to come out on top once more. With Elon Musk and Tesla seemingly being more cautious, understated vehicles like the Model Y, which have so much potential but seemingly receive so little attention, are the most dangerous for competitors.
Granted, one could argue that the I-PACE, the e-tron, and the EQC are more of the more expensive Model X’s competitors considering their prices. While this is true, all three vehicles are actually closer in size to the Model Y than the Model X. Even their interior space are smaller than the X, making them more of a Model Y rival in terms of features and spaciousness.
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
