The intense battle over satellite communication (satcom) spectrum allocation in India has escalated dramatically, as the Broadband India Forum (BIF) has launched a scathing critique against the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). BIF, representing major technology and satellite industry players including Google, Meta, OneWeb, and Amazon, has formally accused telecom operators of misleading the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) regarding the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendations on satcom spectrum. This fierce rebuttal exposes deep divisions within India’s telecom landscape over the future of digital connectivity.
In a sharply worded letter dated June 18, 2025, the Broadband India Forum vehemently rejected COAI’s persistent demands for a review of TRAI’s well-considered recommendations. These recommendations propose significantly lower Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) specifically for next-generation satellite services, particularly Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit (NGSO) systems like Starlink and Amazon Kuiper. COAI, which champions the interests of major telecom giants such as Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel, has consistently argued that these lower charges would create “regulatory arbitrage” and unfairly disadvantage telcos. The association has been a vocal proponent for the allocation of satcom spectrum through auctions, citing the need for a “level playing field.”
BIF Dismantles COAI’s ‘Level Playing Field’ Claim: A Deep Dive into Discrepancies
The Broadband India Forum systematically dismantled COAI’s central “level playing field” argument, labeling it “factually incorrect, legally untenable, and constitutionally flawed.” BIF asserted that attempting to regulate terrestrial and satellite services under identical frameworks is fundamentally erroneous because they differ vastly in technology, commercial intent, and operational realities. As BIF eloquently put it, “unequals cannot be treated equally.”
BIF’s detailed analysis highlighted several critical distinctions:
- Disproportionate Costs: Satellite operators face significantly higher per-user spectrum costs in urban areas. They also bear colossal Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) burdens, encompassing the cost of satellite launches, intricate gateway infrastructure, and navigating complex international licensing procedures. BIF illustrated this by pointing out that even if a satcom operator generated zero revenue, they would still incur a minimum SUC of ₹500 per customer per year, which is nearly double the per-customer spectrum burden faced by terrestrial operators.
- Assignment Period Disparity: The proposed spectrum assignment period for satcom services is a mere five years, a stark contrast to the 20-year allocations that terrestrial telecom operators currently enjoy. This shorter tenure significantly amplifies the investment risk for satellite firms, making a direct comparison of charges misleading.
- Vast Economic Scale Difference: BIF underscored the sheer economic disparity between the two sectors. The terrestrial telecom sector in India generates over ₹3.36 lakh crore annually, while the entire satcom market is a nascent ₹540-600 crore, representing less than 0.2% of telco revenues. This colossal difference, BIF argued, fundamentally discredits any claim of direct market overlap or substitutability.
Telcos’ Own Actions Contradict Claims, Says BIF
In a pointed counter-argument, BIF highlighted that many of COAI’s own member companies, including Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel, have publicly announced commercial collaborations and partnerships with global satellite service providers. This, BIF argues, demonstrably proves that terrestrial and satellite services are complementary rather than directly competitive, thereby undermining COAI’s core narrative of a threatened “level playing field.”
Furthermore, BIF vehemently dismissed COAI’s opposition to the subsidization of satcom terminals through the Digital Bharat Nidhi (DBN) fund. BIF asserted that such targeted financial support is not only lawful but essential for achieving India’s critical national connectivity goals, especially in vast, unserved, and underserved rural and remote areas where commercial viability for terrestrial networks is structurally difficult. BIF unequivocally stated that COAI’s stance—opposing subsidies while simultaneously forging collaborations—”amounts to misleading the public, the government, and the regulator.”
The Broadband India Forum also countered COAI’s claims regarding satellite network capacities, stating that such projections are often speculative and based on unverified figures. They highlighted the disparity in device costs, with satcom terminals costing around ₹25,000 compared to ₹5,000 for terrestrial alternatives, further proving non-comparability.
The Road Ahead: DoT’s Critical Decision on India’s Digital Future
This escalating dispute underscores the critical policy decisions facing the Department of Telecommunications. The DoT is currently in the final stages of framing comprehensive rules for the administrative allocation of satellite spectrum, with a draft expected to be released soon for stakeholder feedback.
TRAI had previously made firm recommendations, proposing a five-year tenure for spectrum allocation for satcom services at 4% of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), alongside a minimum annual charge. Crucially, TRAI had explicitly rejected the telcos’ “level playing field” argument, asserting that the two technologies are distinctly different and that satellite services primarily function as complementary offerings designed to bridge connectivity gaps.
The ongoing debate is more than just a pricing dispute; it is a fundamental disagreement over the strategic direction of India’s digital future. The government’s decision will have profound implications for competition, innovation, investment, and ultimately, the ability to provide equitable and ubiquitous digital access across all corners of the nation. BIF is urging the DoT to dismiss COAI’s review request, emphasizing that the detailed TRAI recommendations should be upheld to ensure accelerated progress towards a digitally empowered India.
Key Highlights:
- BIF Accuses Telcos of Misleading DoT: The Broadband India Forum (BIF) has strongly rebuffed COAI’s claims on satcom spectrum, accusing major telecom operators of misleading the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and attempting to undermine TRAI’s recommendations for lower SUC for satellite services.
- ‘Level Playing Field’ Argument Dismantled: BIF argues that telcos’ demand for a “level playing field” and spectrum auctions for satcom is “factually incorrect and legally untenable,” citing fundamental differences in technology, operational costs (satcom’s higher per-user SUC and CAPEX), shorter allocation periods (5 years vs. 20 for telcos), and vast revenue disparities between the two sectors.
- Contradictory Telco Actions Highlighted: BIF pointed out that many COAI members (like Jio and Airtel) have existing commercial partnerships with global satellite providers, demonstrating that terrestrial and satellite services are complementary rather than directly competitive, thereby undermining COAI’s own objections.
- Crucial Policy Decision Awaits: The debate continues as DoT prepares to finalize rules for administrative allocation of satellite spectrum, with BIF urging adherence to TRAI’s recommendations to foster innovation and bridge India’s digital divide.