TRAI Open House: Jio and Airtel Clash with Starlink and Amazon Over Satcom Spectrum Regulations

Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel engaged in a heated debate with satellite companies at TRAI's open house discussion. The telecom firms argued for equal treatment among competing services, while satellite companies justified the administrative assignment of radiowaves as techno-economic. The discussions, lasting over six hours, involved key stakeholders like Jio, Airtel, Vodafone Idea, and satellite giants such as Starlink and Amazon's Project Kuiper.

Representative image

The open house saw frequent interjections and counter-arguments on issues like pricing, spectrum assignment duration, frequency bands, and rollout obligations. Ravi Gandhi from Reliance Jio emphasised the need for a level playing field. "We TSPs are working in a hyper-competitive market. We are not afraid of competition. It is the other way around actually. The entities which want to be in this space via satellite, in the telecommunication space via satellite, are afraid of competition, and that's why they want all this kind of protection and get spectrum for free," he said.

Level Playing Field Debate

Gandhi suggested that if the government opts against auctioning spectrum for satcom, they could auction licences instead. This approach was used in 2001 when licences were auctioned, and spectrum was administratively assigned for mobile services. Bharti Airtel's Chief Regulator Officer, Rahul Vatts, also stressed the importance of creating a balanced ecosystem. He highlighted the significant investments made by terrestrial operators over the past three decades.

Vatts argued that while encouraging satcom services is essential, it is equally important to protect investments made by terrestrial operators. "So we submit, satcom should be encouraged to serve traditional markets, traditional use cases, including backhaul, the defense use, including the government use, and to areas which are completely unconnected and therefore driving the adoption of satcom must also go hand-in-hand with ensuring that we ensure a healthy competition and a level playing field with other ecosystem players," he stated.

Satellite Companies' Perspective

Parnil Urdhwareshe from Starlink Satellite Communications countered claims of predatory pricing by next-generation systems. He stated that Starlink prices are transparent and available online. "In our experience, over 113 markets as of today, users always choose satellite broadband when they lack other options for reasons of coverage or reliability or affordability. And we think all of these users have an equal right to crossing the digital divide," he said.

Urdhwareshe argued against creating distinctions based on preferred markets for satellite operators. He emphasised that users opt for Starlink due to unavailable or unreliable current options. "Users choose Starlink because their current options are unavailable, unreliable or too expensive. Now some commentators are explicitly arguing that those users should continue to be stuck with services that either don't exist or are too unreliable or are too expensive...," he added.

Spectrum Allocation Concerns

Amazon proposed that spectrum management fees should be based on a percentage of AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue). Kopal Shrivastava from Amazon India suggested a spectrum charge of less than 1% of AGR. She recommended that spectrum assignment should align with the licence period or last 20 years, whichever is shorter.

Amazon's Project Kuiper supports administrative allocation of satcom spectrum alongside Musk's Starlink. Meanwhile, Reliance Jio advocates for auctioning spectrum to ensure fairness for legacy operators who invest heavily in infrastructure like telecom towers.

Airtel highlighted security concerns related to satcom services being used for propaganda in some countries. Vatts insisted on maintaining privacy and security standards while framing norms for satcom services.

The discussions at TRAI's open house underscore the ongoing debate between telecom operators and satellite companies over spectrum allocation methods. Both sides presented strong arguments regarding pricing models and market competition.