Satcom and Mobile Services

Satellite communication services and terrestrial networks (mobile services) are pitted against one another. There is an issue of spectrum allocation. The mobile services companies expect the spectrum to be allocated by auction, while satcom companies expect it to be allocated administratively.

Are both these companies on par? Terrestrial networks can serve both hand-held and rooftop devices. Satellite services face significant hurdles for mobile devices. They cannot match the terrestrial companies. Both of them are on par only when fixed wireless access (FWA) solutions or broadband services.

Satellite companies cannot replicate the services of terrestrial networks for cellphones which cannot efficiently receive satellite signals at high frequencies. Thus there is no direct competition between with traditional mobile networks.

The area of overlap of services is fixed wirless access (FWA). Here too satcom companies face significant challenges as compared to their terrestrial counterparts. They have to track fast-moving satellites and hence their terminals are complex. Cellular base trans receiver stations (BTS) are stationary.

In addition, satellites operate 600-1200 kms away. Base stations or BTS are just a few or even a few hundred kms. away. Thus, satcoms offer lower data speeds than their terrestrial counterparts. Satellite terminals are thus more expensive. These are used where terrestrial networks are not available. India has 29 million BTSs, and 8 lacs towers. Starlink, by contrast, has only 7000 satellites globally and could expand to 40000 satellites.

Mobile operators work on the model of high volumes and low average revenue per user (ARPU). It is the opposite for satellite players. Starlink’s ARPU is $100 as compared to that of mobile operators which is $ 10-15 for FWA services in India.

Both these companies are complementary and do not compete with each other. The issue of level playing field is not relevant.

Regulatory provisions cannot stifle innovation. There should not be lobbying on the basis of level playing field.