The Broadband India Forum (BIF), representing big tech and satellite companies, has pushed back against telecom operators’ objections to the sector regulator’s recent recommendations on satellite spectrum pricing, asserting that the notion of a ‘level playing field’ is fundamentally flawed due to key differences in technology, service models, infrastructure costs, and spectrum allocation methods. BIF further stated that the telecom operators’ opposition is delaying efforts to bridge India’s digital divide and hampering progress toward a digitally empowered nation.
The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) argued that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) proposed satellite spectrum usage charges, set at 4 per cent of adjusted gross revenue without any entry fee or upfront payment, are unjustified. COAI claimed the approach deviates from established administrative spectrum allocation practices and lacks empirical evidence, international benchmarking, or economic justification. The association also maintained that satellite internet services will compete directly with terrestrial networks rather than complementing them.
In response to concerns over competition, BIF emphasised the difference in economic scale. While India’s terrestrial telecom operators generate over Rs 3.36 trillion annually, the satellite communication market accounts for just Rs 54 to 60 billion, less than 0.2 per cent of telco revenue. BIF also highlighted that telecom operators pay a total of Rs 282.93 billion annually in spectrum charges, serving around 1.06 billion mobile users. This translates to a per-user spectrum cost of Rs 265 for terrestrial services.
In its letter, COAI also alleged that TRAI underestimated the potential capacities of satellite networks while possibly overstating those of terrestrial networks in its pricing assessment. The COAI claimed that companies like Kuiper and Starlink are expected to have a planned monthly capacity of 29 billion gigabytes (GB) of data, greater than the current 23 billion GB of data traffic handled by telecom operators, indicating that satellite players are well-positioned to serve a significant share of India’s growing telecom demand.
In response, BIF argued that comparing satellite network capacities (based on unverified and inaccurate figures) with terrestrial traffic volumes is a flawed, non-equivalent comparison. Countering COAI’s opposition to subsidising satellite user terminals through the Digital Bharat Nidhi Fund, BIF also mentioned that where commercial viability is structurally difficult, targeted financial support is not just permissible but essential. Such subsidies would help reduce the financial burden on users in unserved and underserved rural and remote areas. BIF further stated that TRAI’s recommendations should not be reconsidered based on the arguments presented by telecom operators.
