Telecom operators, Adani spar over network rollout at Navi Mumbai airport

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, Bharti Airtel Ltd and Vodafone Idea Ltd have locked horns with Adani Group for not allowing them to set up telecom networks at the country’s newest airport in Navi Mumbai.

In a letter to telecom secretary Neeraj Mittal on Tuesday, the operators alleged that Navi Mumbai International Airport Ltd (NMIAL), part of Adani Airports Holdings Ltd, has denied them permission to roll out their own network infrastructure at the airport to provide seamless 4G and 5G connectivity within the airport premises. Instead, NMIAL is demanding exorbitant charges from the companies for using a network already deployed by it, they said. Mint has reviewed a copy of the letter.

Many travellers at the Navi Mumbai airport also took to the social media platform X to complain about the lack of cellular connectivity at the airport over the last few days. The airport, inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 8 October, began operations on 25 December, with the arrival of its first commercial flight.

A NMIAL spokesperson, in response to Mint’s queries, said that it has not denied permission to the telecom services providers (TSPs) and is discussing the matter with them.

“Owing to the delay by other TSPs, NMIA is providing free, high-speed Wi-Fi services reiterating its commitment to provide high-speed connectivity to all the passengers,” the spokesperson said.

Queries emailed to operators’ lobby the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) on Tuesday evening did not elicit any response until press time.

‘Right of way’ flashpoint

S.P. Kochhar, director general of the COAI, said in the letter, “NMIAL is statutorily obligated to grant Right of Way (RoW) permissions in a non discriminatory and time-bound manner for the installation of telecommunication infrastructure, including in-building solutions (IBS), for the provision of telecom services to users and visitors within the premises under its control.”

RoW is the legal permission that telecom operators need to lay optical fibre, erect towers, or deploy other telecom infrastructure along or on government or private property.

“Contrary to the statutory framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the RoW Rules 2024, NMIAL has declined to grant the necessary permissions,” Kochhar said. “Instead, NMIAL has directed TSPs to mandatorily utilize a network deployed by it, at exorbitant and commercially untenable charges.”

The operators have urged the telecom secretary to direct NMIAL to grant RoW permissions to licensed operators in accordance with the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the applicable RoW rules, so that telcos can deploy independent 4G/5G and IBS infrastructure at the airport premises.

The NMIAL spokesperson, however, said the right of way has never been denied by the airport to any telecom service provider at the airport. “It is also important to mention that IBS (in-building solution infrastructure) has been procured and installed after multiple discussions with individual TSPs. In fact, the government-owned TSP BSNL is already in advanced phase of testing for the use of IBS at the airport,” the spokesperson said.

According to Aurelia Menezes, partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys, the telecom operators appear to be on a strong legal footing in this dispute. “India’s Right of Way framework under the Telecommunications Act and RoW Rules is designed to ensure fair, non-discriminatory access for licensed service providers, even within large public infrastructure such as airports.”

While airport operators may prefer a common or neutral-host network for logistical efficiency, forcing telcos to use an exclusive vendor network, especially at commercially onerous terms, raises serious concerns around competitive neutrality and statutory compliance, said Menezes.

Pricing row

The COAI also said that NMIAL is seeking payments of about ₹92 lakh per month per operator, aggregating to nearly ₹44.16 crore per annum for four operators. The operators argued that these charges are grossly disproportionate and significantly exceed the total capital expenditure ordinarily required for deployment of an independent in-building solution (IBS) network.

The Navi Mumbai airport spokesperson said, “We are rigorously following up with TSPs to conclude the discussions. We welcome individual TSPs to discuss and mutually agree to rates. However, we will not give in to any cartelization in this regard.”

The spokesperson said NMIAL has regularly communicated and discussed with TSPs and already offered the IBS services at charges in line with the existing industry standards, to which the TSPs have yet to respond.

NMIAL justified the deployment of a state-of-the-art in-building solution as a neutral-host mobile network on the grounds that critical operational areas—such as baggage belts, utility buildings and air traffic control facilities—are often deprioritized by telecom service providers in favour of passenger-heavy zones, leading to service gaps, passenger inconvenience and operational inefficiencies at the airport.

To be sure, NMIAL holds a virtual network operator (VNO) category-B licence for access services. It allows a company to offer mobile or broadband services to customers without owning spectrum or a full physical network.

Not the first time

This is not the first such dispute over RoW permissions. In May, the three private telecom companies had a similar dispute with the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) over not being granted permission to lay network infrastructure and being awarded the contract for in-building solutions to a third-party vendor. At that time, the operators also demanded the right to deploy a common in-building solution across four international airports: Navi Mumbai, Guwahati, Thiruvananthapuram, and Bengaluru.

‘Sensitive zone’

Telcos said the NMIAL has conferred upon itself exclusive RoW rights under the guise of being a “neutral host”.

“Such an arrangement is impermissible under the telecom regulatory framework, as the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the applicable authorization conditions do not permit grant of exclusive Right of Way or creation of monopolist arrangements for provision of Right of Way for the purpose of building the telecommunication network,” Kochhar said, adding that an exclusive arrangement effectively forecloses competition and compels all licensed telecom services providers to operate through a single entity at the extortionary charges, thereby undermining competition, consumer choice, and regulatory neutrality.

The NMIA spokesperson said, “Since the airport is a highly sensitive zone, frequent servicing, maintenance, and upkeep of the network are required. This is best managed by the airport operator with the relevant security clearance from BCAS (Bureau of Civil Aviation Security) and other security agencies.”

The turnaround time for any third party to address any concerns with the network will be substantially more, leading to delays and passenger inconvenience, the spokesperson added.

Menezes of King Stubb & Kasiva said globally, shared or neutral-host models are common at airports, but they operate under regulatory oversight with open access and reasonable pricing, rather than exclusivity.

“In India, where only licensed operators are permitted to deploy active telecom infrastructure, any arrangement that effectively denies RoW or creates a monopolistic gatekeeper risks undermining both regulatory intent and consumer choice.”

On 22 December, news agency PTI reported that NMIAL has partnered with state-owned BSNL to deploy mobile networks at the airport. The report said NMIAL will provide free Wi-Fi speeds of up to 10 Mbps across the terminal.

Queries emailed to BSNL did not elicit any response.

In their letter, the telecom operators have also urged DoT to direct NMIAL to refrain from making false or misleading allegations against licensed operators regarding the lack of network coverage at the airport, where such coverage constraints are directly attributable to not granting RoW permissions.