PLEASE file an FCC Complaint against Starlink for bait and switch on aviation plans

Clip4 said:
Except Starlink did not suddenly restructure terms and pricing. Everyone with a service contract was provided the service terms / price agreed upon until their agreement expires and now have been advised of the terms for their next service agreement. If Starlink today said we are out of the consumer data business, are you going to argue they can’t do that?
Click to expand...
Of course they can. You either agree with the premise of bait and switch on this specific issue or you don't. If you do, please take action. If not, please find another thread to make comments. I can't believe the number of people that waste each other's time trying to debate this. Take your debate to Facebook, X, or other.
 
Last edited:
David Loftus said:
Of course they can. You either agree with the premise of bait and switch on this specific issue or you don't. If you do, please take action. If not, please find another thread to make comments. I can't believe the number of people that waste each other's time trying to debate this. Take your debate to Facebook, X, or other.
Click to expand...

Like you wasting our time?
 
I have several Starlinks, 2 home and 4 business, plus one at the hangar.
I'm annoyed I bought a mini and don't have a use for it now.

That said, all Starlink service agreements are month-to-month.
It clearly states they can change the terms of service at anytime, and they allow you to cancel without penalty likewise.
 
Pretty common business model ... "We make money today ... we make friends tomorrow." :biggrin:
 
David Loftus said:
Understood - if enough pilots demanded their money back, it sends a message. I can easily afford $250/mo, but the principle of them jerking pilots around motivates me to try to take some action. As a semiconductor top sales exec for decades, I raised prices many times to my customers. But I always did it with respect and tried to convey the necessity - higher raw materials costs, capacity limitations, etc. Raising prices 500% while cutting data 80% just months after steering aviators to a certain plan is just an outrageous money grab. Sure they may get away with it, but they need to hear from the people they are offending. There are clear guidelines within the FCC and FTC on price gouging. I went back and forth repeatedly with their Global Head of Aviation - he basically admitted to that. And as an electrical engineer highly experienced in aviation electronics, I'll tell you that the theory that providing service to GA aviators actually costs Starlink more is total BS. We cost far less to their network than the $39 home internet service they just intro'ed. Let's see if taking some minimal action makes a difference.
Click to expand...
What message is it that you think would be sent? The money they would need to refund isn't even a rounding error on their monthly bottom line and they have already shown that they don't want your business by raising the price. Its not like you are going to hurt their business or keep others from using them even if you were to win and force a refund. I understand why you feel upset but the reality is that they fufilled the terms of the original contract and they can choose to change the terms for the next contract in any way they want just like you could choose to not renew. You were made aware of the term of the original contract when you signed up and there were no guarantees of anything that would or would not happen after it ran out. You just assumed it would stay the same which was a bad assumption on your part. The new contract indicates that they would rather have a few high payimg customers vs alot of low paying ones. Thats a business choice and not something you or any government beaurocracy get a say in.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Except Starlink did not suddenly restructure terms and pricing. Everyone with a service contract was provided the service terms / price agreed upon until their agreement expires and now have been advised of the terms for their next service agreement. If Starlink today said we are out of the consumer data business, are you going to argue they can’t do that?
Click to expand...

If I had just bought the equipment, yes.
 
It would not be just the return of the equipment, if that was an option, but the longer term cost of reduced number of subscribers. The new service model is not to sell once and be done with it. Sell once, and then get on a monthly plan. Car mfgs are doing this kind of stuff with options that can be turned on or off by monthly contract. BMW angered a lot of customers with their leasing system that was fully optioned - for the first 90 days, and then - after that, every feature that the customer got used to being free became a monthly paid feature. Stuff like driver profiles for seat, mirrors, radio, AC went away. Remote start, and remote locking, etc all became a monthly fee based deal.

So if the antenna and receiver are sent back it may be no bid deal. But - start cutting into the monthly revenue flow and at some point, people will take a look. I don't know what that loss rate would be, but someone somewhere inside the corp knows.
 
Starlink Jet is $10,000 a month....
 
From time to time, I would have to teach biz ethics in undergrad and grad. It was one of the classes that are basically pass/fail and one had to work extremely hard to fail it. Most of the class became the case study method, and we looked into cases where profit was the overwhelming motive, and if it was legal, it was therefor ethical. I tried to instill a better standard than what is just legal.

One of the cases I wrote had to do with a situation similar to this where there is no 'right' answer, but there are a lot of people who considered the extreme profit available to be short-sighted, and also while maybe legal would give the corp a bad reputation to later try and live down. I won't hide it, the corp was Wells Fargo banking and finance. In the long run WF has done some pretty crappy things in banking and finance, and there are a lot of people(me) who refuse to do business with them on ethical grounds. Others decide that it's less important concerning their ethics, as long as the rates are better and they can save a few Sheckles per year.

Again, there are no wrong or right answers, but we have fed and state regulatory agencies that exist for a reason. I bring this up because just a few days ago, WF after paying a multi-billion dollar fine had to re-vamp and overhaul their account tracking, and it was gratifying to see that WF finally took one up the kiester that the shareholders were going to fund. This kind of crappy stuff makes others in the industry tarnished by proxy.

www.reuters.com

Fed terminates enforcement action imposed on Wells Fargo due to fake accounts scandal

The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Thursday it had terminated the enforcement action it imposed on Wells Fargo following the ‌bank's widespread fake accounts scandal, saying the bank had sufficiently overhauled its operations.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
camorton said:
So the guy who is literally posting on the internet all day, every day is calling in-flight internet access a "discretionary cockpit doodad". Got it. No irony there.
Click to expand...

Well, huh. :D Is it still irony with my being a software developer? Like, on the internet? :P

I find this topic fascinating even though my dissenting view isn't welcome. I attend client-billable zoom calls while flying solo and visiting either set of family that are 500nm away from me. It reduces my safety, meaningfully and significantly. It is purely discretionary and should probably be taken away from me by our friends at the FAA. If I midair someone, I'll deserve jailtime.

In addition to these soon-to-be violations, I also have wifi to offer my passengers for the remainder of the month (and no, I don't do zoom calls or code airborne with passengers -- that dichotomy is bonus irony :) ). It's magic sky internet and I love it and I am addicted to the freedom it affords me. I feel like I got away with something every flight.

And now I am again paying what I started paying for global priority when it FIRST came out -- $250/mo. I appreciate that the value isn't there for many, and a rug-pull happened here if you started in the $50 era. That sucks. I feel like it sucks in a way that is becoming "basic business ethics" anymore. Somewhere around the level of "Wait, my McDonalds app points expire?" and I remain surprised at how opposite-extreme my viewpoint is here from some others.

$0.02
 
Business ethics seems like a moot point in today’s world. Business ethics really matters imho when companies gets negative consequences from them. Otherwise, I think they carry on.

I don’t think the current complaints and small social media exposure is changing anything here. Only the introduction of competition will make this decision a negative for SL. However, we must keep in mind right now SL has a moat in that competition requires access to cheaper launch services. Let’s see what happens but it doesn’t feel like there is possibility for quick and long term balance that benefits customers.
 
Seems likely that these changes were probably forced on Starlink. Starlink is weapons grade technology, better than what any military has right now, with full high bandwidth coverage over the globe. They have found military drones equipped with Starlink dishes. With the recent conflicts, it appears that bad actors are using this technology to kill people, namely Americans and allies. So any high speed Starlink device needs to have a purpose which accounts for all the tying to passports, tail numbers etc. At least they didn't kill the whole network for now.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why would this be an FCC issue?
Click to expand...
Its a good question. I mentioned the possible landscape concerns earlier. However, the FCC decided by itself to begin regulating broadband around 2024. Here is some more detailed info. But I admit the whole thing is a gray and light gray and dark gray area of regulation.
natlawreview.com

The FCC’s Net Neutrality Order: Going Beyond Blocking, Throttling, and Fast Lanes

After months of debate and speculation, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its order last month reclassifying broadband internet access service (BIAS) as a telecommunications service subject to common carriage regulations under Title II of the Communications Act.1 In so doing the...
natlawreview.com natlawreview.com
 
Barrett50 said:
Its a good question. I mentioned the possible landscape concerns earlier. However, the FCC decided by itself to begin regulating broadband around 2024. Here is some more detailed info. But I admit the whole thing is a gray and light gray and dark gray area of regulation.
natlawreview.com

The FCC’s Net Neutrality Order: Going Beyond Blocking, Throttling, and Fast Lanes

After months of debate and speculation, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its order last month reclassifying broadband internet access service (BIAS) as a telecommunications service subject to common carriage regulations under Title II of the Communications Act.1 In so doing the...
natlawreview.com natlawreview.com
Click to expand...
I didn’t see anything in there about pricing.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I didn’t see anything in there about pricing.
Click to expand...
I didnt say it discussed pricing. The OP's complaint bullet 2 would or could be considered a throttling, or limitation of service which may or may not, or might possibly be an actionable case under the BIAS interpretation. Please reread post #2 for additional vagueness.
 
A few more thoughts on ethics. Just as criminal behaviors germinate new laws, so does unethical behaviors geminate added regulation. As noted the FCC decided to get into the broadband reg business in 2024.

Would that expansion of regulation happen in this admin? Likely not. But for those who are proponents of added regs on the 'Internet' just keep acting in a questionable way, and regs will follow.

I worked in large scale networking for a long time. Most of you have NO IDEA how badly a rogue network admin can destroy throughput if they decided to get nasty. Crowdstrike blue screen of death. VZW hacked DNS route propagation fault, etc. These were just innocent stupidity. If a global resource like L5 or other decided to no longer play ethically your internet life as you know it would cease for hours if not days. I watched SABRE go dark and ground stop 4000 flights a few years back. Imagine what a guy with ill will could do. Maybe very few here realize how fragile the global network is currently. So, just think about the lack of ethics and how that might generate new regs in the future(post this admin).
 
There seems to be some misunderstanding of what bait and switch is (as far as the rules are). Offering something for a while and jacking up the price later is not that. Bait and switch is advertising something and then when the person attempts to buy, coercing them to buy something different.
 
Pump and dump? Bede-5? Tucker Torpedo? Cessna Skycatcher? Lotta people lost money on questionable corp behavior.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why would this be an FCC issue?
Click to expand...
FCC and Regulatory Position


While "bait and switch" is a common consumer term, the FCC and FTC address these issues through specific regulatory frameworks:


1. Broadband Consumer Labels (The "Nutrition Label" Rule)


The FCC's primary tool against deceptive pricing is the Broadband Consumer Label rule.


• The Requirement: ISPs must provide clear, upfront disclosure of prices, speeds, and data allowances at the point of sale.


• The Conflict: Critics argue that changing terms after a consumer has invested in proprietary hardware violates the spirit of these transparency rules. However, recent 2025/2026 policy shifts under the current FCC have seen a "whittling away" of some detailed reporting requirements, making it harder for consumers to hold ISPs accountable for mid-contract changes.


2. FTC "Junk Fees" and Deceptive Practices


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has broader jurisdiction over "unfair or deceptive acts."


• In late 2024 and 2025, the FTC finalized rules targeting "bait and switch" pricing and hidden fees.


• If a company markets a product (like the Starlink Mini) for a specific use case (mobile/in-motion) and then removes that functionality to force a more expensive upgrade, it may fall under deceptive marketing.


3. Net Neutrality and Throttling


Under current Title II rules (reinstated/upheld as of 2024-2026), the FCC prohibits "unreasonable discrimination" and "throttling." Starlink’s speed cap is technically a functional limitation based on service tier rather than content-based throttling, which makes it a more complex legal "gray area."


What Can Pilots Do?


The aviation community, led by the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), has begun a formal pushback:


• AOPA Advocacy: The AOPA has formally requested that SpaceX reconsider the 100 mph cap, citing the safety benefits Starlink provided to piston-engine pilots who cannot afford business-jet pricing.


• Petitions: A Change.org petition has gained thousands of signatures, specifically calling for a "General Aviation" mid-tier plan (e.g., $100/month for 150-200 knots).


• FCC Complaints: Pilots are being encouraged to file formal consumer complaints with the FCC Consumer Complaint Center. While the FCC may not mediate individual bills, a high volume of complaints regarding "hardware strandedness" can trigger investigations into deceptive trade practices.
 
David Loftus said:
FCC and Regulatory Position


While "bait and switch" is a common consumer term, the FCC and FTC address these issues through specific regulatory frameworks:


1. Broadband Consumer Labels (The "Nutrition Label" Rule)


The FCC's primary tool against deceptive pricing is the Broadband Consumer Label rule.


• The Requirement: ISPs must provide clear, upfront disclosure of prices, speeds, and data allowances at the point of sale.


• The Conflict: Critics argue that changing terms after a consumer has invested in proprietary hardware violates the spirit of these transparency rules. However, recent 2025/2026 policy shifts under the current FCC have seen a "whittling away" of some detailed reporting requirements, making it harder for consumers to hold ISPs accountable for mid-contract changes.


2. FTC "Junk Fees" and Deceptive Practices


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has broader jurisdiction over "unfair or deceptive acts."


• In late 2024 and 2025, the FTC finalized rules targeting "bait and switch" pricing and hidden fees.


• If a company markets a product (like the Starlink Mini) for a specific use case (mobile/in-motion) and then removes that functionality to force a more expensive upgrade, it may fall under deceptive marketing.


3. Net Neutrality and Throttling


Under current Title II rules (reinstated/upheld as of 2024-2026), the FCC prohibits "unreasonable discrimination" and "throttling." Starlink’s speed cap is technically a functional limitation based on service tier rather than content-based throttling, which makes it a more complex legal "gray area."


What Can Pilots Do?


The aviation community, led by the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), has begun a formal pushback:


• AOPA Advocacy: The AOPA has formally requested that SpaceX reconsider the 100 mph cap, citing the safety benefits Starlink provided to piston-engine pilots who cannot afford business-jet pricing.


• Petitions: A Change.org petition has gained thousands of signatures, specifically calling for a "General Aviation" mid-tier plan (e.g., $100/month for 150-200 knots).


• FCC Complaints: Pilots are being encouraged to file formal consumer complaints with the FCC Consumer Complaint Center. While the FCC may not mediate individual bills, a high volume of complaints regarding "hardware strandedness" can trigger investigations into deceptive trade practices.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the complaint should be to the FTC rather than the FCC.
 
Actually Net Neutrality was overturned in 2025 by the sixth Circuit Court.
 
David Loftus said:
FCC and Regulatory Position


While "bait and switch" is a common consumer term, the FCC and FTC address these issues through specific regulatory frameworks:


1. Broadband Consumer Labels (The "Nutrition Label" Rule)


The FCC's primary tool against deceptive pricing is the Broadband Consumer Label rule.


• The Requirement: ISPs must provide clear, upfront disclosure of prices, speeds, and data allowances at the point of sale.


• The Conflict: Critics argue that changing terms after a consumer has invested in proprietary hardware violates the spirit of these transparency rules. However, recent 2025/2026 policy shifts under the current FCC have seen a "whittling away" of some detailed reporting requirements, making it harder for consumers to hold ISPs accountable for mid-contract changes.


2. FTC "Junk Fees" and Deceptive Practices


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has broader jurisdiction over "unfair or deceptive acts."


• In late 2024 and 2025, the FTC finalized rules targeting "bait and switch" pricing and hidden fees.


• If a company markets a product (like the Starlink Mini) for a specific use case (mobile/in-motion) and then removes that functionality to force a more expensive upgrade, it may fall under deceptive marketing.


3. Net Neutrality and Throttling


Under current Title II rules (reinstated/upheld as of 2024-2026), the FCC prohibits "unreasonable discrimination" and "throttling." Starlink’s speed cap is technically a functional limitation based on service tier rather than content-based throttling, which makes it a more complex legal "gray area."


What Can Pilots Do?


The aviation community, led by the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), has begun a formal pushback:


• AOPA Advocacy: The AOPA has formally requested that SpaceX reconsider the 100 mph cap, citing the safety benefits Starlink provided to piston-engine pilots who cannot afford business-jet pricing.


• Petitions: A Change.org petition has gained thousands of signatures, specifically calling for a "General Aviation" mid-tier plan (e.g., $100/month for 150-200 knots).


• FCC Complaints: Pilots are being encouraged to file formal consumer complaints with the FCC Consumer Complaint Center. While the FCC may not mediate individual bills, a high volume of complaints regarding "hardware strandedness" can trigger investigations into deceptive trade practices.
Click to expand...

Needs a good reference to Admiralty Law to really drive it home.
 
Starlink purchased microwave spectrum license from Echstar or ATT, i forget which had what the wanted for Mini and their legacy equip. Being that evergthing from VLF to around 90Ghz is licensed by the FCC, notwithstanding the payload being digital or otherwise the FCC has a say.

However, this throttling issue is a very gray area. The overturning of the feds net neutrality regs has made it even more opaque to discern how any bandwidth is parceled out. Terrestrial privately owned wired networks may be safe, but once it is on an antenna, the FCC comes into play somehow.

Some states are now implementing their own flavor of NN with mixed results.
 
David Loftus said:
FCC and Regulatory Position


While "bait and switch" is a common consumer term, the FCC and FTC address these issues through specific regulatory frameworks:


1. Broadband Consumer Labels (The "Nutrition Label" Rule)


The FCC's primary tool against deceptive pricing is the Broadband Consumer Label rule.


• The Requirement: ISPs must provide clear, upfront disclosure of prices, speeds, and data allowances at the point of sale.


• The Conflict: Critics argue that changing terms after a consumer has invested in proprietary hardware violates the spirit of these transparency rules. However, recent 2025/2026 policy shifts under the current FCC have seen a "whittling away" of some detailed reporting requirements, making it harder for consumers to hold ISPs accountable for mid-contract changes.


2. FTC "Junk Fees" and Deceptive Practices


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has broader jurisdiction over "unfair or deceptive acts."


• In late 2024 and 2025, the FTC finalized rules targeting "bait and switch" pricing and hidden fees.


• If a company markets a product (like the Starlink Mini) for a specific use case (mobile/in-motion) and then removes that functionality to force a more expensive upgrade, it may fall under deceptive marketing.


3. Net Neutrality and Throttling


Under current Title II rules (reinstated/upheld as of 2024-2026), the FCC prohibits "unreasonable discrimination" and "throttling." Starlink’s speed cap is technically a functional limitation based on service tier rather than content-based throttling, which makes it a more complex legal "gray area."


What Can Pilots Do?


The aviation community, led by the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), has begun a formal pushback:


• AOPA Advocacy: The AOPA has formally requested that SpaceX reconsider the 100 mph cap, citing the safety benefits Starlink provided to piston-engine pilots who cannot afford business-jet pricing.


• Petitions: A Change.org petition has gained thousands of signatures, specifically calling for a "General Aviation" mid-tier plan (e.g., $100/month for 150-200 knots).


• FCC Complaints: Pilots are being encouraged to file formal consumer complaints with the FCC Consumer Complaint Center. While the FCC may not mediate individual bills, a high volume of complaints regarding "hardware strandedness" can trigger investigations into deceptive trade practices.
Click to expand...
How about the non-AI answer?
 
Well, Starlink blinked because of the widespread complaints. Barely. Within a few weeks of their outrageous price increase, they reduced the 300mph tier by $50 per month to $200, increased the included data to 50GB, and reduced the cost of extra GB. While not back to the original Roam plan pricing, it is an improvement. Instead of constantly subscribing to a Roam plan as before, I will enable or disable it on a month-to-month basis when I fly longer distances, especially out west. Thanks to all who signed the petition and/or filed complaints with the FCC. It's a modest but important improvement, and demonstrates that they are responding to market pressure. Hopefully when Kuiper or others come online, there will be more options and more competition for our business.

What are the new General Aviation plans?
 
Last edited:
David Loftus said:
Well, Starlink blinked because of the widespread complaints. Barely. Within a few weeks of their outrageous price increase, they reduced the 300mph tier by $50 per month to $200, increased the included data to 50GB, and reduced the cost of extra GB. While not back to the original Roam plan pricing, it is an improvement. Instead of constantly subscribing to a Roma plan as before, I will enable or disable it on a month-to-month basis when I fly longer distances, especially out west. Thanks to all who signed the petition and/or filed complaints with the FCC. It's a modest but important improvement, and demonstrates that they are responding to market pressure. Hopefully when Kuiper or others come online, there will be more options and more competition for our business.

What are the new General Aviation plans?
Click to expand...
If you fly 301mph, you’re still screwed though. I’d pay $200. I won’t pay $1000.
 
dans2992 said:
If you fly 301mph, you’re still screwed though. I’d pay $200. I won’t pay $1000.
Click to expand...
My Meridian M600 normally cruises at 305 mph. We have the 300 plan. Means that any tailwind requires pulling the power back. Headwinds all is golden. Passengers have unequivocally let me know they would rather spend some extra minutes in the air than lose internet. On my last flight, had a light tailwind so pulled the power back saving some fuel, but would bump up to 305/307 for short periods of time and we didn’t disconnect. So there seems to be some period of forgiveness. Now going into SLC ATC wanted me at 220 indicated which put our ground speed at over 350 mph and it was immediate bu-bu-bye. So there is a limit. I’m just glad the new prices came down a little bit. I think it’s 250? The contentment of the passengers, and the options to afford are worth far more than that.
 
Rockymountain said:
My Meridian M600 normally cruises at 305 mph. We have the 300 plan. Means that any tailwind requires pulling the power back. Headwinds all is golden. Passengers have unequivocally let me know they would rather spend some extra minutes in the air than lose internet. On my last flight, had a light tailwind so pulled the power back saving some fuel, but would bump up to 305/307 for short periods of time and we didn’t disconnect. So there seems to be some period of forgiveness. Now going into SLC ATC wanted me at 220 indicated which put our ground speed at over 350 mph and it was immediate bu-bu-bye. So there is a limit. I’m just glad the new prices came down a little bit. I think it’s 250? The contentment of the passengers, and the options to afford are worth far more than that.
Click to expand...
I was bored so cruised around a bit yesterday up high to see how things went. I have the 100mph plan. I had the same problem with tailwinds, though I was close to stalling and still not able to keep a connection. Even with the headwind I couldn’t hold a connection forever without slowing down more than I like. I found that doing a tight 360 confused it into giving me quite awhile before losing the connection again, but if I were going somewhere that would suck. I didn’t test it but I bet a 90 degree left followed by a 90 right might work nearly as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top