The ongoing dispute between Indian telecom service providers and satellite communications (satcom) operators has further intensified, as the Broadband India Forum (BIF) — an association of Big Tech and satellite companies — has written a letter to the government accusing telcos of attempting to block entry of next-generation satellite services into India.
BIF; whose members include Google, Meta, OneWeb, Hughes, Amazon, and Tata's Nelco; addressed the letter to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) Secretary, Neeraj Mittal. The letter stated the telcos’ claim of a "level playing field" are unfounded in the current context, based on inaccurate data, and incorrect in law.
“We respectfully urge that any request by the Association for review based on the misrepresented and flawed ‘level playing field’ argument and any other arguments made in their submission should be summarily dismissed,” reads the letter. This rebuttal from BIF comes in response to a letter by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) to the government, in which it criticized the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) satellite spectrum pricing as “unjustifiably low, non-transparent, and non-competitive.” COAI—which represents the country’s three private telecom giants, Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea—argued that TRAI’s pricing would unfairly benefit satellite internet providers like Elon Musk’s Starlink, to the detriment of terrestrial network operators. COAI warned that satcom services are becoming direct competitors to traditional telecom networks and alleged that TRAI failed to adequately incorporate inputs from local operators before finalizing its recommendations, which are currently under review by the telecom ministry.
According to TRAI’s proposal, satellite service providers would pay spectrum usage charges (SUC) equivalent to 4% of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) or Rs 3,500 per MHz annually—whichever is higher. In addition, under existing DoT rules, satcom providers must pay an annual license fee of 8% of AGR. TRAI has also proposed an additional urban-area charge of Rs 500 per subscriber annually for satellite services.
BIF noted that many COAI members themselves (referring to the partnerships of Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel with Starlink) have announced commercial collaborations with global satellite providers, demonstrating that terrestrial and satellite services are complementary—not competitive. It further stated that terrestrial telecom operators in India generate over Rs 3.36 lakh crore annually, while the combined satellite communications market is valued at just Rs 540–600 crore—merely 0.2% of telco revenues. Additionally, BIF pointed out that satellite terminals cost around Rs 25,000, compared to Rs 5,000 for terrestrial alternatives, a 1:5 ratio. Moreover, while the largest satellite provider manufactured approximately 3 million terminals globally in 2024, nearly 150 million mobile devices are sold annually in India alone—a scale difference of 1:500.COAI claimed that the SUC was set lower than the administrative fees for geostationary (GSO)-based VSAT services. BIF rebutted this, stating that terrestrial spectrum is exclusive, interference-protected, and domestically regulated, while satellite spectrum is shared, non-exclusive, and governed by international ITU coordination and orbital constraints.
Even if a comparison were made, BIF argued that per-user satcom spectrum charges are significantly higher than those of terrestrial services. In urban areas, satcom operators pay a minimum SUC of Rs 500 per user annually—nearly 1.85 times the per-user spectrum burden of telcos.
BIF also pointed out that claims of low spectrum charges for satellite operators ignore the significant capital expenditures (CAPEX) and regulatory hurdles they face, including satellite launches, gateway construction, ground stations, and multi-jurisdictional licenses. Furthermore, the proposed 5-year spectrum allocation for satcom—pushed by telcos themselves—adds to the financial risk compared to the 20-year allocations enjoyed by terrestrial operators.
Lastly, BIF rejected COAI’s claim that low fiber penetration in India presents a huge opportunity for satellite operators. “Low fiber coverage does not reduce satellite terminal costs, nor does it indicate actual satellite capacity,” the forum noted.