A standoff between telcos and standalone infrastructure owners over who controls mobile networks inside public facilities has led to network blackouts at the Navi Mumbai airport and the Mumbai Metro Aqua Line. It has now escalated into a commercial conflict, with travellers caught in the middle, explains Urvi Malvania.
Why telcos are at war with metro & airport owners
The Dispute Centres on who controls and deploys telecom infrastructure—specifically, in-building mobile networks—inside large public transport infrastructure.
Reliance Jio Infocomm, Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea — argue that metro rail corporations and airport operators are denying them direct access to deploy their own networks or comp-elling them to use infrastructure built or controlled by an entity appointed or promoted by the property owner.
In the case of the Mumbai Metro Aqua Line, telcos allege that the metro authority awarded the contract to a third-party vendor through a tender where telcos were not considered. Again, they allege that the Adani Group-owned Navi Mumbai International Airport Limited (NMIAL), has refused to grant them Right of Way (RoW) permissions to deploy their own in-building networks and instead seeks to impose a centrally controlled arrangement.
A similar issue is cited in Delhi-NCR infrastructure such as airport underpasses and tunnels. Telcos argue that such arrangements create exclusivity and turn the infrastructure owner into a gatekeeper.
How Right of Way and In-Building Solutions work
Right Of Way (RoW) refers to the statutory permission granted to licensed telecom operators to access land or premises owned or controlled by public authorities for deploying telecom infrastructure.
Under the Telecommunica-tions Act, 2023 and the Right of Way Rules, public authorities managing places such as airports, metro stations, tunnels, and similar facilities are required to grant RoW to licensed operators in a non-discriminatory and time-bound manner, subject only to limited, prescribed charges. In-Building Solutions (IBS) refers to telecom infrastructure installed inside enclosed structures where outdoor mobile signals do not adequately penetrate.
Telcos say active IBS infrastructure can be operated only by licensed telecom service providers holding spectrum, not by unlicensed entities or infrastructure-only providers.
What is the telcos’ argument?
The Telcos’ Core argument is that responsibility for enabling telecom connectivity inside complex public infrastructure lies either with the licensed telecom operators themselves or, in specific cases such as tunnels, with the property owner—but not through exclusive or monopolistic arrangements.
They contend that NMIAL cannot deny RoW to licensed operators, appoint itself or another entity as a “neutral host,” or impose exclusive arrangements that force all operators to use one network.
In the Mumbai Metro context, including the Aqua Line, telcos say they should be allowed to deploy a common, TSP-led IBS network without being compelled to route services through a third-party vendor selected by it.
For the Jewar Airport and comparable tunnels, the Department of Telecommunications has stated that the property owner bears responsibility for enabling telecom infrastructure and cannot levy usage or entry charges on telcos for IBS deployed inside such facilities.
The monetary angle in the dispute
In The NMIAL case, telcos allege that the airport operator is seeking to charge them recurring fees that go well beyond administrative or restoration costs, which are the only charges allowed under the RoW framework.
Telcos argue that being compelled to use a centrally controlled or airport-owned network exposes them to arbitrarily high and commercially unviable fees, effectively converting a statutory facilitation process into a revenue-generating model for the infrastructure owner.
Similar concerns are raised in the Mumbai Metro context, where third-party vendors are alleged to have imposed inflated charges, and high rental costs. For example, in case of the Mumbai Metro Aqualine, telcos are being charged 7.5 lakh per station, per month.
Telcos have argued that the cost of setting up the infrastructure is equal to the fees for the first two years, and the rest of the fees will accrue as profits for the third-party vendor. The contract of the third-party vendor spans more than two years. In case of existing metro and airport projects, monthly fees have been hiked to 80,000 – 90,000 after years of deployment.
In case of the Navi Mumbai Airport, the charge is `92 lakh per month per operator, which the telcos say exceed the total capital expenditure on deployment of an independent IBS network.
Impact on the end-user
The Primary Impact on end-users is poor, inconsistent, or entirely absent mobile connectivity in critical public infrastructure,resulting in dropped calls and lack of mobile data. This affects not only consumer convenience but also operational safety, emergency communications, and digital services that depend on uninterrupted network access.
From the user’s perspective, the dispute translates into degraded service quality in spaces where reliable connectivity is expected as a basic utility, particularly in newly built, high-profile public infrastructure such as airports and metro corridors.