India’s burgeoning digital economy and its rapidly expanding aviation sector are on a collision course at the newly operational Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA), where a heated dispute over mobile network infrastructure costs has left thousands of travelers without seamless connectivity. This standoff pits major telecommunication service providers (TSPs) against the airport operator, an Adani Group entity, raising critical questions about market competition, regulatory oversight, and the very definition of essential public infrastructure in a digitally dependent world.
The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), representing the nation’s leading telecom companies, has formally petitioned the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to intervene. At the heart of their appeal is the demand for a cost-based pricing framework and a cap on charges for installing crucial in-building mobile network infrastructure within public spaces like airports. The genesis of this conflict lies in the airport’s alleged denial of Right-of-Way (RoW) permissions to TSPs, coupled with the establishment of what the telcos describe as an exclusive, monopolistic in-building telecom arrangement.
Since its commercial inauguration on December 25th, the Navi Mumbai airport has faced persistent complaints from passengers regarding the conspicuous absence of reliable cellular service. This connectivity vacuum is directly attributable to the impasse between the airport management and the telecom operators, who have been unable to agree on mutually acceptable commercial terms for the deployment of necessary infrastructure. The telcos argue that the airport’s strategy has effectively created a "market failure," granting undue control over a vital service to a single entity.
S.P. Kochhar, Director General of COAI, articulated these concerns in a recent communication to TRAI chairman Anil Lahoti. He highlighted that the airport operator, along with its chosen in-building solution (IBS) provider—which operates merely as a virtual network operator (VNO)—has assumed a gatekeeper role over an "essential facility." This, he contends, constitutes a "monopolistic bottleneck" in a public utility space. In the absence of competitive pressures and a transparent, cost-regulated framework, the airport operator, through its IBS partner, can levy exorbitant, opaque, and non-cost-reflective charges on TSPs. Telecom companies, with no viable alternative to serve their customers within the airport premises, find themselves compelled to accept these terms, which ultimately trickle down to consumer costs or compromise service quality.
This situation has prompted telcos to advocate strongly for TRAI to establish and enforce a clear, cost-based pricing structure and appropriate price ceilings for in-building telecom infrastructure. Such regulation, they argue, is imperative in scenarios where a single entity holds monopolistic control over access within public or captive locations, including but not limited to airports, metro stations, and large commercial complexes. Kochhar’s appeal further urged TRAI to recommend directives ensuring that public entities grant RoW permissions to licensed TSPs on a non-discriminatory basis. Alternatively, any mandated shared infrastructure in such locations should adhere strictly to regulated, transparent, and cost-oriented terms.
Former TRAI Principal Advisor, Satya N. Gupta, echoed the sentiment that the current scenario at the airport represents a clear market failure. He underscored TRAI’s inherent authority and mandate to implement cost-based charging mechanisms in such situations, asserting that these critical infrastructure services should not be left solely to the whims of market forces when competition is demonstrably absent.
Conversely, the Navi Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd (NMIAL) spokesperson has defended its approach, stating that it aligns with globally accepted practices. Most international airports, they claim, adopt a single, neutral-host telecom infrastructure model to ensure consistent coverage, enhance safety protocols, and maintain operational efficiency across the sprawling airport complex. NMIAL asserts that its pricing for neutral-host IBS services is consistent with rates already established and implemented at other major Indian airports operating under public-private partnerships. The airport also highlighted that it provides complimentary Wi-Fi to passengers and that the state-owned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) network is currently accessible within the premises.
Earlier correspondence from telecom operators to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) revealed the staggering figures at the heart of the dispute. Telcos reported being quoted "exorbitant" charges, reportedly ₹92 lakh (approximately $110,000 USD) per month per operator, for providing connectivity. The operators vehemently contend that as licensed entities holding spectrum rights, they possess the legal authority to offer connectivity based on RoW rules stipulated under the Telecom Act. They have also challenged the practice of airport and metro authorities appointing third-party providers, perceiving these intermediaries as unnecessary gatekeepers who control essential infrastructure and connectivity permissions, thereby inflating costs.
NMIAL counters that it has engaged in regular communication and discussions with TSPs, offering in-building services at rates it deems to be in line with industry standards. Furthermore, the airport emphasizes the highly sensitive nature of airport zones, necessitating frequent servicing, maintenance, and upkeep of network infrastructure. This, they argue, is best managed by the airport operator, possessing the requisite security clearances from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and other agencies. Involving multiple third parties, an NMIAL spokesperson noted, could significantly prolong response times for network issues, leading to service delays and considerable passenger inconvenience.
This situation at Navi Mumbai is far from an isolated incident. Telecom operators frequently encounter similar challenges where third-party IBS providers secure exclusive agreements with public entities such as airports, metro rail corporations, hospitals, and large convention centers. These providers then leverage their monopolistic position to demand what telcos describe as "super-normal profits" or excessive rents, simply for the right to enable licensed operators to serve their own subscribers on-site. Such high charges, often accepted by TSPs under the implicit threat of exclusion from critical public spaces, are frequently increased without any clear correlation to actual costs, according to Kochhar. A parallel dispute has already unfolded at the Mumbai Metro Aqua line, where passengers have experienced prolonged connectivity issues due to an ongoing disagreement over commercial terms.
The economic implications of this dispute extend beyond mere inconvenience. In a nation rapidly embracing digital transformation, seamless connectivity at major transport hubs like airports is not just a luxury but a fundamental necessity for business travelers, tourists, and the efficient functioning of logistical networks. India’s aviation sector is projected to become the third-largest globally, handling millions of passengers annually. Any disruption to digital services at these gateways can impact productivity, hinder emergency communications, and potentially deter international business and tourism, thereby affecting India’s global competitiveness. The lack of reliable mobile connectivity can also impede the adoption of smart airport technologies, real-time operational updates, and various digital services that enhance passenger experience and operational efficiency.
Globally, the model for in-building telecom infrastructure varies. While some international airports, particularly newer ones or those undergoing significant expansion, do opt for a neutral host model to streamline management and ensure uniform coverage, the commercial terms are often subject to regulatory oversight or robust competitive bidding processes. For instance, in parts of Europe and North America, regulatory bodies often ensure that infrastructure access is provided on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, preventing monopolistic pricing. The challenge lies in balancing the airport operator’s need for security and operational control with the public interest in ubiquitous and affordable connectivity provided by licensed TSPs.
As India pushes towards a truly digital future, the resolution of this dispute will set a critical precedent. It highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive national policy or regulatory framework that addresses infrastructure sharing, RoW permissions, and cost-based pricing for essential telecom services within public and captive spaces. Such a framework must balance the commercial interests of infrastructure owners with the broader public good of ubiquitous and affordable digital access, ensuring that the economic and social benefits of connectivity are not stifled by access monopolies. TRAI’s intervention is therefore not just about resolving a localized dispute at Navi Mumbai Airport but about shaping the future landscape of digital infrastructure access across India’s rapidly modernizing public utilities.
