By Shriram Subramanian
India’s ambition to become a global economic superpower rests not only on scale and aspiration but on trust, fairness, and perception as a predictable and transparent regulatory environment. Yet recent developments, particularly the stringent satellite authorisation imposed on a single satellite operator, AsiaSat, threaten to shake the foundations of that trust. This is not just about one satellite operator, but about India’s regulatory posture, its global alignment, regulatory credibility, and the future of its space, entertainment, and creator economy.
For over three decades, AsiaSat has been part of India’s satellite broadcasting ecosystem, enabling the seamless delivery of linear television, enterprise communication, rural connectivity, and global events such as the Indian Premier League, Olympics, and FIFA World Cup. Through its Indian partner Inorbit Space Telecommunications, the company has extended its services to over 850 million TV households across Asia-Pacific, helping amplify India’s media footprint and facilitating cultural and informational exchange. Despite its history of regulatory compliance and legacy of service, AsiaSat encountered unexpected hurdles this year when it sought long-term satellite authorisation from IN-SPACe, India’s space regulator. The situation worsened after a ministry of information and broadcasting advisory was interpreted by the industry as a signal that AsiaSat’s services would not be permitted in India beyond April 2026.
Broadcasting disruption and uncertainty
The response across the broadcasting landscape has been one of disruption and uncertainty. Major broadcasters such as Star, Zee, and ABP, heavily reliant on AsiaSat’s infrastructure, now face the real prospect of losing access to vast segments of their audience, impacting both advertising revenue and international syndication agreements. Rural and semi-urban audiences, for whom satellite remains a primary mode of access to news, education, and entertainment, risk being cut off from essential programming. Multi-system operators and local cable operators, having invested significantly in AsiaSat-aligned infrastructure, are now forced into a scramble for alternative providers, a move that imposes additional costs, operational complexity, and the threat of service disruptions.
More than an isolated regulatory event, this reveals deeper structural vulnerabilities in India’s broadcasting sector. Transitioning to a new satellite provider is far from seamless. It disrupts timelines for live content, especially sports and political broadcasts, and puts smaller, resource-strapped broadcasters at a disadvantage. This further fragments the market and dilutes content diversity. Spectrum scarcity adds to the pressure, as limited satellite bandwidth inflates prices and constrains expansion. Simultaneously, the push towards next-generation technologies like 5G and over-the-top streaming requires capital-intensive transitions that few are willing to make under the shadow of policy unpredictability. Add to this the impact of rising operational costs, a hesitant advertising ecosystem, and the geopolitical sensitivities around perceived foreign ownership, and the fragility of the broadcasting environment becomes undeniable.
Policy consistency and global credibility
What is concerning is the apparent inconsistency in regulatory enforcement. While AsiaSat struggled to secure approvals, other international satellite operators such as OneWeb, Starlink, and SES-Intelsat reportedly received long-term authorisations without hindrance. This perceived selective treatment raises important questions about fairness, objectivity, and India’s broader regulatory posture. When decisions appear reactive or opaque, they not only undermine investor confidence but also cast doubt on India’s commitment to fostering a transparent, globally aligned media and communications framework.
The broader issue is India’s growing divergence from global best practices in regulatory governance. In the pursuit of self-reliance, pushing away the long-time partners who helped us build world-class capabilities across telecom, media, and now, space technology, is a huge negative in a multi-polar world. When decisions appear motivated by rhetorics, and divorced from sectoral realities, they could damage the investment climate and cast doubts on promotion of trades with global partners.
The timing could not be worse. At the July 2025 WAVE Summit, India showcased its aspirations to become the epicentre of the global digital and creative economy. India would provide a stable and enabling environment for the digital and media economy to thrive. India must understand that policy stability is not the enemy of sovereignty; it is the precondition for leadership. A global economy runs on confidence, and confidence thrives where rules are consistent, changes are consultative, and enforcement is impartial. Regulatory frameworks must not be weaponised based on origin, perception, or politics. Regulatory decisions cannot be driven by speculations of geopolitics.
India must urgently effect course correction by re-committing to transparent, non-discriminatory regulation anchored in fairness, due process, and global best practices. While it has every right to set high standards for strategic sectors like space and protect our own strategic industries, these must be applied uniformly, based on clear criteria, and free from geopolitical bias. India cannot aspire for global leadership or build a $44-billion space economy by 2033 on a foundation of regulatory uncertainty.
The larger implication is that investors and partners across sectors are watching closely. Regulatory unpredictability sends a negative signal when even compliant, long-standing partners and global companies can find themselves subject to abrupt changes. It makes investors wary. India risks diluting its hard-earned reputation as a reliable destination for global business. Policymakers need to re-commit to a transparent, consistent, and consultative framework. The time to act is now.
The writer is founder & MD, InGovern Research Services.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.