 "Telecom industry")
A battle is brewing between the country’s leading telecom services providers (TSPs) and Adani group-run Navi Mumbai International Airport Ltd (NMIAL), with the telcos seeking the Department of Telecommunications’ (DoT’s) intervention over allegations that they have been denied “right of way” at the airport and are being forced to mandatorily use a network deployed by the airport operator at what they describe as “grossly exorbitant and untenable” charges aggregating to ₹44.16 crore a year to provide services to customers.
An NMIAL spokesperson rejected the claims, saying telecom operators had not been denied “right of way” and that discussions had been held with them, including an offer for in-building solution (IBS) services at charges in line with prevailing industry standards, to which the telecom companies had not responded. “We welcome individual TSPs to discuss and mutually agree on rates. However, we will not give in to cartelisation in this regard,” the spokesperson said.
The telecom industry’s apex body, the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), representing Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea, has argued in a recent communication to the DoT that under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024, the new airport qualifies as a “public utility.”
The COAI said NMIAL is statutorily obligated to provide “right of way” permission in a non-discriminatory and time-bound manner for the installation of telecom infrastructure, including in-building solutions.
The association said that while the three operators had approached the airport company, NMIAL had declined to grant the necessary permissions, contrary to the statutory framework of the Telecommunications Act and the “right of way” rules. Instead, it had directed them to mandatorily utilise a network deployed by NMIAL at charges that were exorbitant and commercially untenable.
According to the COAI, its members have been asked to pay around ₹92 lakh per month per operator, aggregating to ₹44.16 crore per annum for four operators, including state-owned BSNL. These charges are grossly disproportionate and significantly exceed the total capital expenditure ordinarily required to deploy an independent IBS network, it added.
The COAI also said it understood that NMIAL held the relevant licence for access services and had conferred upon itself exclusive “right of way” under the guise of being a neutral host, which it argued was not permitted under the Telecommunications Act. The law, it said, did not allow the grant of exclusive “right of way” or the creation of a monopolistic arrangement for the provision of “right of way”.
NMIAL, however, said the IBS had been procured and installed after multiple discussions with individual telecom service providers, and that BSNL was currently at an advanced stage of testing use of the IBS at the airport.
NMIAL had consciously decided to install its own IBS infrastructure based on the experience that certain critical areas such as baggage belts, utility buildings and air traffic control were often neglected by telecom operators in favour of passenger-heavy zones, affecting airport efficiency, a spokesperson said. Given that airports are sensitive zones, frequent servicing, maintenance and upkeep of the network are best managed by the airport operator with the requisite security clearances, noting that turnaround times for third parties to address network issues tend to be longer, they added.
Tense banter
What telcos say
- Denied statutorily obligated ‘right of way’ at NMIAL
- Asked to mandatorily use network deployed by airport, which is not allowed under the Telecom Act
- Asked exorbitant and untenable charges for airport network
Nmial’s defence
- Not denied ‘right of way’
- Price offer has been made to use the IBS services but telcos have not reverted
- Ready to discuss mutually agreed rates but will not allow cartelisation
- Installed IBS on their own after numerous discussions
- Maintenance and upkeep of network best managed by airport rather than third party
