Telcos Seek Government Intervention
Telecom companies in India are urging the government to intervene in a growing dispute with the Adani Group regarding mobile infrastructure at the newly opened Navi Mumbai airport. The conflict arises from the airport operator’s refusal to grant “right of way” permissions, which the telecom firms say is essential for them to establish cellular services at the airport. The Cellular Operators’ Association of India (COAI) has raised concerns about what it describes as “monopoly arrangements” that undermine competition and consumer choice.
The issue came to light when a sign at the airport indicated that mobile services from Airtel, Vodafone, and Jio might not be available, suggesting that passengers could rely on the available free Wi-Fi service instead. This sparked a flurry of complaints from both consumers and telecom operators alike.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy is centered on the airport operator’s deployment of an In-Building Solution (IBS), which is designed to manage wireless connectivity within its premises. However, the operators argue that the charges imposed by the airport for the use of its IBS are exorbitant and commercially untenable.
The COAI has stated that the operator is demanding nearly ₹92 lakh per month for each telecom provider, summing up to about ₹44.16 crore annually for four operators. These fees are claimed to significantly exceed the costs normally associated with establishing an independent IBS network.
Telecom Action Plan
Formal Appeals to Government
In response to these challenges, the COAI has formally written to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), emphasizing that the airport falls under the definition of a public entity as per the Telecommunications Act, 2023. Therefore, it is legally required to provide RoW permissions in a timely and non-discriminatory manner, enabling telecom operators to set up their infrastructure.
The association argues that the airport has effectively given itself exclusive RoW rights under the guise of being a “neutral host,” which they claim is not permissible under the law. “The exclusive arrangement effectively forecloses competition and compels all licensed TSPs to operate through a single entity at the extortionary charges,” the COAI statement explained.
Claims of Monopolistic Behaviors
Officials from the Adani Airport Holding Limited have countered the allegations, stating that given the sensitive nature of airport operations, managing maintenance and services is best handled internally. They justify their choice of the IBS infrastructure as a measure to ensure uninterrupted connectivity for passengers.
A spokesperson for the Adani group remarked, “As a major transport hub, it is crucial for us to maintain a high standard of services, including telecommunications. The infrastructure can be best managed by our in-house team to serve our passengers adequately.” This stance, however, has done little to quell the unrest among telecom users.
Public and Political Reaction
The public reaction has been swift, with many passengers expressing dissatisfaction regarding the lack of mobile connectivity at a major international airport. Social media platforms have been flooded with posts from travelers regarding the inconvenience.
Additionally, political figures have chimed in. Shiv Sena UBT MP Priyanka Chaturvedi criticized the situation, noting that it reflects a larger issue of corporate monopoly over public infrastructure. She expressed concern over the impact on passenger convenience, writing on X, “Shouldn’t government agencies ensure the airport operator maintains basic connectivity for the public?”
Impact on Business and Future Developments
The ongoing disputes raise potential concerns for businesses relying on mobile communications at the airport. This situation could deter potential partnerships and investments, as companies demand reliable infrastructure as a prerequisite for operations. International airlines and aviation bodies have already expressed concerns regarding the financial implications of the ongoing tussle.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) previously voiced its opinion, suggesting that airlines should not be forced to transition from the existing Mumbai airport to the new facility under such unsatisfactory arrangements.
Next Steps for Stakeholders
Telecom operators are awaiting the response of the Department of Telecommunications, which could play a crucial role in resolving the dispute. The COAI has stressed the urgency of the matter, considering that the demand for connectivity will only increase with more flights and travelers utilizing Navi Mumbai airport.
The airport operator, on its part, has announced that it is open to discussions, aiming to find a resolution that could work for all stakeholders. However, whether the Adani Group is willing to adjust its charges remains to be seen.
As the situation evolves, both the telecom operators and the airport must navigate the delicate balance between profitability and public service to maintain customer trust and satisfaction.
Conclusion
In summary, the conflict between telecom companies and the Adani-run Navi Mumbai airport highlights critical issues surrounding mobile connectivity in sensitive operational zones. The outcome of this dispute could have broader implications for both consumer choice in telecommunications and operational models at Indian airports. Each party is poised for potential negotiation in the coming days, with a focus on finding a resolution that prioritizes passenger convenience while also addressing commercial interests.