Telcos Flay TRAI and Satellite Spectrum Charges have sparked heated debates in India’s telecom industry, with major players like Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea slamming the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) proposed 4% Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) charge for satellite spectrum. This article dives into the controversy, exploring why telcos believe these charges create an unfair advantage for satellite internet providers like Starlink and Amazon’s Kuiper. We’ll break down the implications for terrestrial telecom networks, the digital divide, and the future of connectivity in India, while also examining TRAI’s perspective and the potential impact on consumers. Written for Startup INIDAX, this conversational piece unpacks the complexities of spectrum pricing and its role in shaping India’s telecom ecosystem.
Table of Contents
The Brewing Storm: Telcos Flay TRAI Over Satellite Spectrum Charges
The Indian telecom industry is no stranger to fierce competition and regulatory battles, but the latest clash has raised the stakes. Telcos Flay TRAI has become a trending topic as major players like Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea criticize the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) for its Satellite Spectrum Charges recommendations. In May 2025, TRAI proposed that satellite communication (satcom) companies, such as Starlink and Amazon’s Kuiper, pay 4% of their Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) for spectrum usage, alongside an additional ₹500 per subscriber annually in urban areas. This move has sparked outrage among traditional telecom operators, who argue it creates an uneven playing field, favoring global satcom giants over terrestrial networks.
At Startup INIDAX, we’ve been closely following this saga because it’s more than just a pricing dispute—it’s about the future of connectivity in India. With satellite internet poised to transform rural and urban access, the debate over spectrum charges could redefine how startups, consumers, and telecom giants operate. Let’s unpack why telcos are so upset, what TRAI is trying to achieve, and what this means for India’s digital landscape.
Why Telcos Are Up in Arms
The 4% AGR Controversy
The heart of the issue lies in TRAI’s decision to set Satellite Spectrum Charges at 4% of AGR, with a minimum annual fee of ₹3,500 per MHz. Telcos, represented by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), have called this rate “unjustifiably low” and “non-transparent.” They argue that TRAI’s pricing lacks a clear rationale and underestimates the capacity of satcom players. For context, terrestrial telecom operators have spent trillions of rupees in spectrum auctions over the years, while satcom companies are getting spectrum through administrative allocation—a process telcos view as unfairly lenient.
According to a letter from COAI to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), the proposed charges could undermine the sustainability of terrestrial networks. With satcom players like Starlink and Kuiper planning to offer 29 billion GB of data per month—surpassing the 23 billion GB handled by terrestrial operators—these companies aren’t just complementary players; they’re direct competitors. Telcos Flay TRAI for ignoring this reality, claiming the low charges give satcom firms an edge in pricing and market entry.
Auction vs. Administrative Allocation
Another sore point is TRAI’s decision to allocate satellite spectrum administratively rather than through auctions. Telcos, especially Reliance Jio, have long advocated for auctions, arguing they ensure fairness and transparency. In an October 2024 post on X, Jio emphasized that satellite broadband spectrum should be auctioned to level the playing field. Auctions force companies to bid competitively, reflecting the true market value of spectrum. In contrast, administrative allocation allows TRAI to set prices, which telcos argue benefits global players who can scale quickly without the financial burden of auctions.
This debate isn’t new. Back in 2023, TRAI sought public views on whether satellite spectrum should be auctioned or administratively assigned. While satcom companies opposed auctions, telcos insisted on them, citing the massive investments they’ve made in spectrum over the years. The fact that TRAI stuck with administrative allocation has only fueled the Telcos Flay TRAI narrative, with operators warning that it could distort market dynamics.
TRAI’s Defense: Satellite as a Complementary Service
TRAI, led by Chairman Anil Kumar Lahoti, has pushed back against the telcos’ claims. Lahoti argues that satellite services are not competitors but complementary to terrestrial networks. In a May 2025 briefing, he stated, “After detailed examination, we have found that satellite services will be complementary and not compete with terrestrial services”. TRAI points out that satellite spectrum is a shared resource, unlike the exclusive spectrum assigned to terrestrial operators, making it impossible to price them similarly.
Lahoti also highlighted capacity differences. For example, in Delhi, terrestrial networks can support 50 lakh broadband connections, while a single satellite constellation can only handle 10,000–20,000 connections. This limited capacity, TRAI argues, means satcom services are better suited for underserved rural areas or disaster relief, not urban markets where telcos dominate. Additionally, TRAI recommends subsidies for satcom user terminals in rural areas to bridge the digital divide, a move praised by the Indian Space Association (ISpA) for balancing government revenue with affordability.
At Startup INIDAX, we see TRAI’s perspective as an attempt to foster innovation in connectivity, especially for remote regions. However, telcos argue that TRAI’s assumptions are flawed, particularly its claim that satcom won’t compete in urban markets. With companies like Starlink eyeing India’s growing data demand, the line between complementary and competitive is blurry.
The Digital Divide Debate
One of TRAI’s key arguments for lower Satellite Spectrum Charges is to bridge India’s urban-rural digital divide. Satcom services can reach remote areas where terrestrial networks are impractical, potentially connecting millions of unserved Indians. TRAI’s proposal to waive the ₹500 per subscriber fee in rural areas and subsidize user terminals (costing ₹20,000–50,000) aims to make satellite internet accessible.
However, telcos argue this goal is misguided. In their letter to the DoT, COAI claimed that TRAI’s recommendations won’t effectively close the digital gap, as satcom players are likely to focus on profitable urban markets. They also criticized TRAI’s suggestion to allow billing in U.S. dollars, which could give global players like Starlink a pricing advantage over domestic telcos. This, they say, could divert investment away from terrestrial networks, slowing rural expansion.
For startups following this on Startup INIDAX, the digital divide debate is critical. Affordable satellite internet could empower rural entrepreneurs, enabling e-commerce, edtech, and agritech ventures. But if telcos scale back investments due to perceived unfairness, the dream of a digitally inclusive India could stall.
Impact on Consumers and Startups
So, what does this mean for consumers and startups? For urban users, the additional ₹500 annual fee for satcom services might make satellite internet less attractive compared to terrestrial broadband. However, in rural areas, subsidized terminals and no extra fees could make services like Starlink a game-changer. Imagine a farmer in a remote village accessing real-time market prices or a student attending online classes—satcom could unlock these opportunities.
For startups, the implications are twofold. First, satcom’s entry could spur innovation in sectors like IoT, logistics, and telemedicine, where reliable connectivity is key. Second, if telcos reduce network investments due to financial strain, startups relying on terrestrial broadband might face slower speeds or limited coverage. Startup INIDAX readers should watch how this unfolds, as it could impact funding and growth strategies for tech ventures.
Telcos Flay TRAI for potentially disrupting their business models, but consumers might benefit from increased competition. Lower satcom prices could pressure telcos to improve services or cut costs, a win for users. However, if terrestrial networks suffer, urban consumers might face higher prices or reduced quality.
What’s Next for India’s Telecom Industry?
The battle over Satellite Spectrum Charges is far from over. TRAI’s recommendations are pending approval from the DoT’s Digital Communications Commission and the cabinet. Telcos, through COAI, have urged the government to form a committee for a comprehensive review, signaling their intent to fight on. Meanwhile, satcom players like Starlink and Eutelsat OneWeb are gearing up to launch services in India, with licenses already secured or in progress.
The outcome will shape India’s telecom landscape for years. If TRAI’s recommendations are implemented, satcom could accelerate digital inclusion, but at the cost of straining terrestrial operators. If telcos succeed in pushing for auctions or higher charges, satcom’s growth might slow, delaying connectivity for remote areas. Either way, the debate highlights the need for a balanced approach that supports innovation without undermining existing infrastructure.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act for Fairness
The Telcos Flay TRAI saga underscores the complexities of regulating a rapidly evolving industry. TRAI’s Satellite Spectrum Charges aim to make satellite internet viable while addressing the digital divide, but telcos see them as a threat to their survival. For consumers and startups, the outcome could mean better connectivity or higher costs, depending on how the government navigates this storm. At Startup INIDAX, we’ll keep tracking this story, as it’s a pivotal moment for India’s tech and telecom ecosystem. What do you think—should satellite spectrum be auctioned, or is TRAI’s approach the right one? Let us know in the comments!
1 comment
Really nice style and great content, absolutely nothing else we require : D.