Beyond the Starlink dispute: India needs a transparent spectrum policy

A dispute has emerged between billionaire Elon Musk and India over delays in launching Starlink’s satellite-based internet services and allegations of unequal competition. Musk alleged that powerful business interests were obstructing Starlink to protect existing telecom monopolies and questioned the influence of Mukesh Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Industries (RIL).

The disagreement centres partly on spectrum allocation. Musk supports administrative allocation, whereas Reliance Jio advocates auctions. Although Starlink has obtained a licence, it must fulfil security requirements and secure spectrum allocation before commencing commercial operations. The Union government maintains that all satellite operators must follow a uniform regulatory framework, with security assessments essential to protect national interests and ensure regulatory compliance. Meanwhile, Starlink has entered into distribution agreements with Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel, demonstrating that commercial cooperation remains possible despite competition. As India expands satellite broadband services, the dispute highlights the challenge of balancing foreign investment, fair market competition, affordable internet access and national security.

Satellite-based internet licensing in India is regulated by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), and the relevant space-sector regulations under the Telecommunications Act, 2023. India uses the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) authorization under the Unified Licence framework for satellite communication services. According to the Department of Telecommunications’ portal, as of 10 June 2025, three companies had received authorization: Jio Satellite Communications, OneWeb India Communications, and Starlink Satellite Communications. The published GMPCS fee structure includes a one-time entry fee of ₹one crore, an annual licence fee of eight per cent of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), and other applicable charges. The authorization is valid for 20 years. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates satellite networks, spectrum use, and earth stations. This January, it authorised SpaceX to launch an additional 7,500 Starlink Gen2 satellites, bringing the total number of authorised satellites to 15,000. In the United Kingdom, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) regulates satellite networks and gateway earth stations through its licensing framework. The European Union (EU) combines national telecommunications authorizations with common rules for selected satellite services and harmonized spectrum bands. Australia’s Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) regulates satellite networks, earth stations, frequency use, and international coordination requirements. Compared with these countries, India faces several key policy challenges, including spectrum pricing, security clearances, gateway requirements, lawful interception of communications, and ensuring fair competition between satellite-based and conventional telecommunications operators. International experience suggests that transparent licensing timelines, predictable spectrum charges, and clearly defined security requirements can help attract investment and expand broadband connectivity in underserved areas.

Starlink brings opportunities and challenges:

Musk plans to introduce Starlink, a satellite-based internet service operated by SpaceX, into India, which has over one billion internet users. Using low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, Starlink provides broadband connectivity to remote villages, mountainous regions, islands, and areas where fibre-optic cables and mobile towers are difficult to install. Its revenue comes from monthly subscriptions, user-terminal sales, and connectivity services for businesses and institutions. India offers significant growth potential, particularly in rural areas, transport networks, and institutions requiring reliable connectivity in remote locations. On October 8, Musk alleged that powerful business interests were obstructing Starlink’s entry to protect their market positions but provided no publicly available evidence to substantiate his claim.

The next day, Union Communications Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia stated that India would not permit monopolies in any sector and would adopt a technology-neutral approach while finalising its spectrum-pricing policy. Starlink’s entry could intensify competition for domestic telecommunications companies, including Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel, particularly in rural and remote markets. However, differences in spectrum charges, licensing fees, and regulatory obligations could raise concerns about fair competition between satellite and conventional telecom operators.

The government must prioritise data security, lawful interception, national security, and compliance with Indian regulations. Domestic telecom companies may need to invest in satellite technology, improve service quality, and introduce innovative pricing strategies to remain competitive. Ultimately, transparent licensing, fair spectrum pricing, consistent regulations, and effective security safeguards can encourage investment, promote healthy competition, and expand affordable internet access across India.

The best solution to the Starlink dispute involving Elon Musk, Mukesh Ambani, and the Indian government is to establish a transparent, impartial, and technology-neutral satellite internet policy. The government should set clear timelines for licensing, security clearances, spectrum allocation, and commercial operations. Spectrum pricing must follow a transparent and predictable framework that considers the differences between satellite broadband and conventional telecom services. Starlink, Reliance Jio, and other operators should follow consistent regulations on security, data protection, consumer protection, and lawful interception. The government should promote dialogue among satellite operators, telecom companies, TRAI, and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to resolve disputes constructively.

Companies should compete through service quality, affordable pricing, innovation, and rural connectivity rather than regulatory advantages. Measurable broadband targets and incentives should expand internet access to remote villages, schools, hospitals, and disaster-prone areas. Ultimately, fair competition, predictable regulations, and strong security safeguards can protect India’s interests while attracting investment and improving affordable internet access nationwide.

(The writer is Professor, School of Commerce and Management, Mohan Babu University, Tirupati)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr P Subramanyachary

Dr P Subramanyachary