The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) has strongly opposed the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) latest recommendations on spectrum allocation for satellite-based communication. In a letter to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), COAI warned that the proposed pricing structure gives non-terrestrial operators an undue advantage over traditional telecom companies, potentially distorting competition in the Indian broadband space.
The association, which represents major private telcos such as Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea, argued that the recommended framework unfairly benefits operators of non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems. These players, COAI claimed, would not face the same level of financial or operational commitments as terrestrial operators, while still gaining access to long-term spectrum rights.
Disparity in spectrum fees and obligations
TRAI has proposed charging satellite operators the higher of 4% of adjusted gross revenue (AGR) or ₹3,500 per MHz per annum, plus ₹500 annually per urban subscriber. COAI said these charges are unjustifiably low when compared to the costs imposed on ground-based telecom providers, which pay auction-determined rates amounting to 18%–53% of AGR, often over 20-year periods.
The association added that while geostationary satellite operators currently pay more in administrative fees for VSAT services, TRAI’s proposal recommends lower fees for NGSO operators offering equivalent broadband services. COAI argued that such differentiation lacks justification and called the process “non-transparent” and “misaligned with the DoT’s mandate.”
Concerns over rural obligations and market competition
COAI also took issue with TRAI’s claim that NGSO services are needed to bridge India’s digital divide, referencing a 2024 DoT letter cited by TRAI. COAI stated that the letter never claimed that only NGSO satellites could serve rural areas and noted that the recommendations do not impose rural rollout obligations on satellite providers despite this argument being used to justify lower fees.
The association challenged the notion that satellite internet is merely complementary to terrestrial networks. It cited examples such as Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper, which are actively entering the consumer and enterprise broadband segments in urban areas. COAI warned that without regulatory parity, satellite players could rapidly gain ground, especially in favourable policy environments.
Call for DoT intervention and pricing review
Highlighting a case from Kenya—where Starlink quickly became a top ISP and later faced a 1,000% fee hike by regulators—COAI urged Indian authorities to reassess the current trajectory. It has recommended forming a DoT-led review committee to examine TRAI’s pricing rationale and ensure equitable spectrum valuation.
COAI also dismissed TRAI’s inclusion of device ecosystem maturity as a factor in pricing, stating that handset or terminal affordability has never been used to determine spectrum charges in India.
According to COAI, failing to correct these disparities could hinder fair competition and skew the broadband landscape in favour of satellite providers operating under less stringent rules.
