Elon Musk says Starlink is licensed in more than 165 countries and has spent five years seeking approval in India. He also accuses powerful business interests of holding up its launch. Musk says he does not understand why India remains cautious. The government’s response, published by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) on October 8, is that all three satellite licensees are undergoing security assessments and are at broadly the same regulatory stage. After an assessment, a licensee can seek spectrum assignment. Starlink’s claim of operating in many countries matters, but it does not answer India-specific concerns. The public status does not prove lobbying never happens, but it raises a clear question: what security concerns must India resolve before service can begin?
To understand the concern, consider how satellite broadband works. A customer’s outdoor dish communicates with satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO). The satellites pass traffic to a ground station, or gateway, which connects the network to the internet. Some constellations use inter-satellite links (ISLs) to pass traffic between satellites. Starlink says its laser links create a global mesh, giving it more routing options than a network dependent on a nearby ground station.
A mobile network has a different shape: a phone connects to a nearby tower, which connects to the operator’s network. Towers and other equipment are within India and subject to Indian law.
Authorities can direct an operator to restrict service in an area or shut a site. Mobile networks involve more than towers, but the government has familiar, reachable points to enforce its orders.
Satellites are different. They orbit beyond India’s physical reach and a network control centre may be overseas. India cannot take direct control of the spacecraft, but it can regulate the Indian licensee, gateways, spectrum, imported equipment and terminals used here. Control over the space segment is indirect, so ground-side obligations must be enforceable.
Enforcing Conditions
India’s rules recognise this. The Department of Telecommunications requires Indian gateways for each authorised satellite system and says Indian traffic must pass through these gateways here. A gateway is also an important point for lawful interception and security controls. ISLs raise a question: could traffic from India be routed through satellites to a gateway abroad? The answer is that it is technically possible if an operator chooses to defy its licence conditions.
Therefore, what leverage India has if a provider refused a lawful order? India can withhold spectrum, act against the Indian licensee and enforce conditions at the gateway. Approval could also require terminal registration, location reporting and a tested way to disable service. These are real levers only if the conditions are clear and tested before launch. A promise to follow the law is not enough: regulators must be able to verify where traffic goes, identify terminals and confirm that a restriction works.
Also, blocking is less straightforward than in a terrestrial network. Mobile towers are fixed; low-orbit satellites move, hand service to one another and cover a wider area. A user terminal can also be moved. Precise local restrictions may depend on provider cooperation and knowing which device is active where. Authorities can seize terminals, but finding small or smuggled devices in remote or sensitive areas could be difficult. This is harder than directing one fixed tower to stop serving a locality. That is why terminal identity, registration, location and remote-disable controls matter.
Jamming is not a magic off-switch. Satellite links use radio frequencies and can be jammed; a 2026 guide from the US and Australian cyber authorities says LEO satellite links are susceptible. But jamming is blunt interference, not a clean way to switch off one customer or service area. It may affect other users and services. Moving satellites and anti-jamming measures make targeted disruption harder. India should rely on enforceable licence and terminal controls, not assume jamming can solve a compliance problem.
The concern is not imaginary. Reuters reported that Indian authorities recovered Starlink equipment in two operations in 2024: one in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and another in Manipur. Musk said Starlink’s beams were off over India. The recoveries do not prove the equipment connected to the network, but they show why authorities ask who can activate a terminal, where it is used and whether service can be stopped when required.
Money Matters
The business question is separate. Satellite broadband may compete with fixed wireless access (FWA), which delivers home internet from a mobile tower to a modem. But Starlink’s outdoor terminal and installation add a cost that a regular home modem does not. Until Indian terminal and monthly prices are known, it is difficult to judge whether Starlink can compete for mass-market homes. FWA may be the closer competitor where fibre is unavailable or unreliable. Fibre remains strong where built: it can offer high capacity and stable service. Satellite’s strongest case may be villages, islands, ships, disaster zones and other places where fibre or enough towers are uneconomic. Affordability will still matter in India.
The current licence allows home satellite broadband and it differs from direct-to-device service. A home dish can connect through satellite-service spectrum without a mobile operator lending cellular spectrum. A satellite that connects directly to an ordinary phone may use satellite bands or a mobile operator’s spectrum. If it uses the latter, spectrum rights and a commercial arrangement are needed. These are different services and should not be treated as one threat to telecom operators.
Indian operators may prefer not to face another competitor and their commercial incentives deserve scrutiny. But an incentive is not proof that they caused a delay. PIB says all three licensees are at broadly the same regulatory stage. That does not prove identical timelines, but it undercuts the claim that Starlink alone is being blocked. Security remains the government’s stated gate.
The sensible choice is neither an unconditional launch nor a blanket rejection. Before service begins, India should require a demonstrable Indian gateway path, auditable routing, lawful access, verified terminal identities and locations, and a tested way to restrict or disable service on a lawful order. Those conditions should apply equally to every provider. No case of Starlink misuse has been established. The question is whether India can enforce its rules if a foreign-controlled network fails to comply.
(Views expressed are personal)
MORE FROM THIS ISSUE
Parag Kar is a telecom and technology policy expert with over 35 years of experience
