Indian carrier alliance COAI has issued a strongly-worded statement to oppose a government review of spectrum allocation for private 5G networks – citing good public 5G, plus high costs, spectrum interference, economic loss, unfair competition, and security risks. All private 5G in India should be delivered via operator spectrum, it argues.
In sum – what to know:
Public 5G – is best for private 5G, says COAI, whether sub-let or sliced for enterprises.
High risk – from private 5G costs, interference, revenue loss, and national security risks.
Know how – only seasoned operators can operate 5G networks for enterprises, it argues.
The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), representing the country’s big three mobile operators, has issued a statement to argue that India should not allow enterprises direct access to 5G spectrum on the grounds that public 5G coverage is good enough, whether it is sub-let or sliced for enterprises. It also makes the case that the country’s telecom regulator, TRAI, would be making a mistake to reverse the de facto carrier-only model for private 5G access because of high costs, operational challenges, interference risks, revenue loss, unfair competition, and national security concerns. Enterprise-licensed private 5G networks face all of these issues, it argued.
COAI maintains that directly allocating 5G spectrum to enterprises in India is impractical and potentially harmful. It argues that, unlike in countries such as the US, Germany, or the UK – where private networks often serve remote or poorly connected industrial sites – most Indian industrial zones already have robust public network coverage from traditional mobile operators. This eliminates any coverage gaps that private spectrum might fill, it said. The group also disputes claims that independent private 5G networks would be cheaper, noting that such deployments require heavy capital investment in equipment, spectrum management, security, maintenance, and skilled staff.
It issued the letter, signed by S.P. Kochhar, director general at the group, yesterday (August 11), as the Indian government’s department of telecommunications (DoT) reviews a poll of large enterprises in the country to assess demand for directly-licensed spectrum for private 5G networks – in line with the mid-band spectrum carve-up for enterprises in Europe, the US, and elsewhere. Enterprises with a “net-worth” of more than ₹100 Crores (somewhere north of $11.5m) had until the end of last month (July) to respond to a ‘demand survey’ to register their interest in licensing spectrum for ‘captive non-public networks’ (CNPNs; private 5G, by any other name).
The full statement from Kochhar is included below. COAI represents Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea (Vi). The news is covered in greater depth, with views from both sides, in a companion analysis piece, under the header, Indian private 5G market at a crossroads – fears of total setback as telcos push back.
COAI also warns of potential interference between private networks and public mobile services due to uncontrollable radio frequency spillover, which licensed operators are better able to manage. It emphasises that bypassing TSPs could reduce government spectrum auction revenues, create unfair competitive advantages for unlicensed players, and erode regulatory parity. Most significantly, perhaps, it cites national security risks, arguing that unlicensed or foreign-run networks would not be bound by the same compliance, interception, and traceability obligations as TSPs, weakening the state’s ability to prevent or respond to cyber threats and misuse.
All enterprise 5G needs in India should be met through licensed spectrum from mobile operators, it argues. Which is the same story, of course, that operators have presented in every market where spectrum has been liberalised for enterprises to own their own private 5G systems – and where operators have been forced, as a consequence, to be more active in the space.
Rull COIA statement:
“COAI believes that direct spectrum allocation to enterprises is not tenable in India because of various reasons pertaining to India’s telecom ecosystem, the national revenue as well as security architecture. While some industry bodies have, in their own interests, drawn parallels with countries such as the US, Finland, Germany, UK, etc. where private networks have been deployed, this comparison ignores a crucial contextual difference of such industries being located in remote or geographically secluded areas with limited public network coverage. In India, however, most industrial corridors and enterprise zones are already well-served by telecom operators, thereby leaving no coverage deficit.
“It is further misleading to state that setting up private networks independently would be cheaper for enterprises as in reality, deploying a private 5G network entails significant capital expenditure on equipment, spectrum management, security, network maintenance and skilled personnel. Unlike TSPs (Telecom Service Providers), most enterprises do not have the expertise or scale to manage telecom infrastructure efficiently. What appears cheaper on paper could turn out to be more expensive and operationally burdensome in practice.
“Moreover, with continuous upgrades and evolution of both the technology as well as the ecosystem, there would be need for continuous upgradations to the network components in the private network, which the TSPs would be in the most favorable position to know and deploy suitably.
“It is also misleading to claim that telcos would not be technically equipped to provide for the private networks, as with the provisions of 5G, knowledge of the requisite SLAs and the provision of Network Slicing put together, the telcos are in a better position to provide the services along with the knowledge and experience required to run the same on a long-term basis.
“It may also be noted that radio frequencies cannot be geographically or physically contained and hence, RF signals from private networks can spill over beyond the intended premises, leading to interference with public mobile networks operated by licensed TSPs, creating risks in network reliability, service quality and user experience on both sides. This could be well managed by a TSP.
“Besides, one must also consider the significant loss to the government exchequer in case of private networks as the national auction of spectrum generated ₹1.5 lakh crore in 2022 alone. Moreover, it would create an uneven playing field between TSPs and private entities who enjoy infrastructure benefits without comparable regulatory or financial obligations.
“Above all, COAI firmly believes that the private networks managed by unlicensed or foreign entities raise serious national security concerns as these players are not bound by the same compliance, interception and regulatory obligations as TSPs. Without a clear regulatory framework, there would be no accountability in case of misuse, breach or attack. Such an arrangement would also dilute the State’s ability to ensure lawful interception, user traceability and emergency response coordination. Without robust domestic oversight, this could expose India to cybersecurity, surveillance and diplomatic risks and set a dangerous precedent of allowing private service delivery without appropriate safeguards, investments or responsibilities.
“COAI strongly believes that all enterprise 5G needs must be fulfilled through licensed Telecom Service Providers via spectrum leasing or network slicing as this would ensure national security, revenue protection and regulatory parity in this rapidly evolving ecosystem. The future of India’s digital economy must be built on secure, inclusive and accountable networks and Indian Telecom Service Providers stand ready to deliver private 5G solutions under appropriate regulatory supervision.”
