Debate over satellite spectrum allocation: Jio, OneWeb up the ante

In a new development in the ongoing spectrum battle, India’s largest telecommunications carrier by subscriber count, Reliance Jio, has written to the regulator, arguing that the Telecommunications Act, 2023, does not mandate “administrative allocation as the only method of assignment” for satellite operators.

Jio contends that the Act includes provisions allowing the government to amend the First Schedule, which currently lists services where spectrum can be assigned administratively, including global mobile personal communications by satellite (GMPCS).

In its response on August 16, Jio rejected the claim made by a stakeholder that spectrum should continue to be assigned administratively to satellite operators. Sunil Mittal’s OneWeb had earlier insisted that spectrum allocation for satellite operators be done administratively as outlined in the Act — setting up a direct confrontation with Jio.

The new Telecommunications Act lists 19 services in the First Schedule where spectrum can be assigned administratively. Initially, GMPCS was not part of this Schedule during the draft stage.

In September 2021, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) referred the issue of satellite spectrum auction modalities to the regulator. In April 2023, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) issued a consultation paper to explore the best method for assigning satellite spectrum — whether through auction, administrative means, or another approach — leaving the matter unresolved.

On June 21, 2024, the DoT sent another reference to Trai, seeking proposals on the terms, conditions, fees, or charges for authorising firms to provide tele-communications services under the Act.

In its response to Trai’s consultation paper on the “framework for service authorisations under the Telecommunications Act”, Jio pointed out that under Section 4(5)(a) of the Act, the central government has the power to amend the First Schedule for spectrum assignment based on three criteria: serving the public interest, performing government functions, and situations where auctions are not preferred due to “technical and economic” reasons. Additionally, under Section 57(1), the government has the power to amend the First Schedule.

Jio argues that the government has based its listing of certain spectrum use cases on an ad hoc policy of administrative assignment without thoroughly evaluating the “technical and economic feasibility of auctions” or seeking Trai’s expert recommendations.

Jio further contends that all entries in the First Schedule for spectrum use in commercial services should be tested against the conditions outlined in Section 4(5)(a). The regulator must justify, based on technical and economic factors, why auctioning spectrum is not feasible.

Moreover, Jio has said that whether spectrum is assigned administratively or through auction, there should be continuous evaluation due to technological advancements, as spectrum usage in any given band will evolve over time.

In contrast, low-Earth orbit broad-band satellite communications major OneWeb has made a strong case for assigning spectrum administratively to non-geostationary orbit operators on a provisional basis, pending the issuance of final rules. OneWeb argues that delaying the assignment is wasting both operator and public resources. They have offered to provide an undertaking that spectrum charges will apply from the date of assignment, in line with the final policy.