Broadband India Forum rebuts COAI's claims on satcom spectrum; says telcos misleading DoT on TRAI’s recommendations

The Broadband India Forum (BIF) has written to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), countering recent claims made by an industry association- the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and pushed back against the latter’s demand for a review of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendations on satcom spectrum allocation.

In its detailed letter dated June 18, 2025 (a copy of which Storyboard18 has seen), BIF denounced the COAI’s argument for a “level playing field” between terrestrial and satellite services as factually incorrect, legally untenable, and constitutionally flawed.

It argued that such comparisons fundamentally misunderstand the technological, commercial, and regulatory distinctions between the two communication systems.

COAI had reportedly claimed that TRAI’s proposed lower spectrum usage charges (SUC) for next-generation satellite services, especially for non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) systems like Starlink and Amazon Kuiper, would promote “regulatory arbitrage” and hurt telcos.

Read more: Indian telcos slam TRAI’s satellite spectrum pricing as 'unjustifiably low'

Rejecting these allegations, BIF asserted that the association's entire argument rested on a flawed notion of “substitutability,” wrongly equating the capacity, reach, and market intent of satellite services with terrestrial telecom. “The argument that satellite and terrestrial services are substitutable is grossly erroneous— both in law and in fact,” BIF said. The Forum emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of equality, also upholds reasonable classification and differential treatment—and satellite and terrestrial operators belong to inherently distinct classes. Attempting to equate the two, it said, is both unjust and economically irrational.

"TRAI followed mandate, COAI distorted its intent"

Another major point of contention lies in COAI’s reading of DoT’s original reference to TRAI. While COAI interpreted it as a directive to ensure parity between satellite and terrestrial players, BIF clarified that the language clearly asked TRAI to merely “account for” a level playing field, not guarantee one.

“TRAI’s consultation was comprehensive, spanning over 36 pages of analysis on this issue,” BIF wrote, adding that the regulator had examined spectrum allocation, pricing models, service obligations, and network capabilities in depth. BIF further accused COAI of selectively quoting capacity projections of satellite players like Starlink and Kuiper to bolster its case. These, it said, were future-oriented and based on unverified assumptions. In contrast, actual capacity assigned to India from Starlink’s global network is estimated to be just 2.1 Tbps, barely 1% of the capacity held by leading Indian telcos.

BIF also dismissed COAI’s claim that satellite operators were enjoying favorable spectrum charges. On the contrary, the Forum argued, satcom operators face higher per-user spectrum costs in urban markets and carry massive CAPEX burdens for satellite launches, gateway infrastructure, and international licensing. BIF noted that even without revenue, a satcom operator would pay Rs 500 per customer per year in SUC—almost twice as much as terrestrial operators.

Moreover, the spectrum assignment period for satcom services is proposed at just five years, versus 20 years for telcos, further increasing the investment risk for satellite firms.

Read more: TRAI recommends 5-year satellite spectrum allocation, extendable by two

Further, BIF argued that COAI’s own member companies have signed commercial partnerships with satellite operators. This contradicts COAI’s argument that satellite services compete directly with terrestrial ones.

“In the present case, it may be noted that the Association’s claims are far detached from reality as its own members have made public announcements of forming a business/commercial partnership with global satellite service providers, thereby demonstrating complementarity between terrestrial and satellite services,” it said.

The think tank, in response to COAI’s objection to subsidising satcom terminals through the Digital Bharat Nidhi (DBN) fund, also pointed out that such support was lawful and aligned with national connectivity goals.

“This dual stance, claiming competition in regulatory forums while embracing collaboration in the market, amounts to misleading the public, the government, and the regulator,” BIF said.

This conflict stems from TRAI’s May 9, 2025 recommendations on assigning spectrum for commercial satellite-based communication services, especially low Earth orbit systems. TRAI had suggested that spectrum should not be auctioned for satcom, unlike for terrestrial telcos, and had proposed a hybrid pricing model that includes administrative fees and a revenue share.

Read more: Govt tightens satcom rules; mandates legal interception of satcom services, bars data routing outside country

While satellite players and industry groups like BIF welcomed the move as a step toward universal digital inclusion, COAI pushed back, alleging unfair regulatory advantage and a threat to the telecom industry’s revenue.

In early November last year, TRAI concluded an open-house discussion on the terms and conditions for the allocation of spectrum to satellite-based commercial communication services.

Telecom industry giants such as Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel have pushed for satellite spectrum to be allocated via auctions, a move they argue would ensure nationwide mobility services. Conversely, satellite communication firms, including major players like Elon Musk’s Starlink, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and other global companies, have lobbied for an administrative allocation of the spectrum.