Satcom can complement telecom services in remote areas

The Centre’s decision to allocate spectrum for satellite communications (satcom) administratively, rather than through auction, is a commendable move that defies pressure from the telecom lobby. This decision aligns with the global trend of recognising the unique nature of satcom and the need for regulatory flexibility to foster innovation and competition. Unlike mobile services, satcom networks do not need dedicated spectrum resources. All satellite players in other countries operate by sharing spectrum resources. Auctioning such bands would have led to fragmented ownership of critical spectrum, reducing the operational flexibility that satellite operators need.

India needs satcom players for two reasons. First, satcom has become a viable alternative to traditional broadband services, especially in rural and remote regions where laying fibre or building cell towers is economically challenging. India has so far been using Geostationary Earth Orbit satellites mostly for imagery, and direct-to-home broadcasts. However, these systems have some limitations for two-way communications because they are operating in an orbit that is 36,000 km away from Earth. Now, players such as OneWeb deploy Low Earth Orbit satellites which operate at much lower orbital distances, ranging from 160 to 2,000 km, making them conducive for providing high-capacity broadband. This technology is relevant, given that around 25 per cent of the Indian population resides in remote areas where it is hard for terrestrial operators to set up a telecom network. Second, the entry of satcom players will reinvigorate the competitive landscape in telecom, which has become a duopoly. Satcom services have so far been deployed to offer fixed broadband service and as backhaul infrastructure for telecom operators. However, tech advancements have made it possible for satcom players to offer seamless broadband connectivity directly to the users’ smartphones, bypassing traditional cell towers.

Telecom operators have expressed concerns that satellite operators could disrupt their business model. However, the strengths of terrestrial telecom and satellite operators are complementary, and their collaboration could lead to mutual gain. Satcom providers could supply the much-needed backhaul connectivity in remote areas where fibre deployment is not feasible, while telecom operators can extend their last-mile services. Globally, over 90 telecom operators representing approximately 5 billion connections have tied up with satellite operators.

However, the Centre should ensure a level playing field between satellite and telecom operators. Satellite spectrum must still be priced in a way that reflects its value while promoting healthy competition. A transparent process for spectrum allocation will dispel misgivings on preferential treatment. Other service conditions — such as licensing fees, quality-of-service requirements, and regulatory compliance — should be comparable for both sets of players.