Airtel ‘Priority’ sparks debate: Is 5G network slicing creating class system among customers?

Airtel’s new “Priority” service for postpaid customers does not appear to violate India’s existing net neutrality rules, but it raises an important question: should telecom operators be allowed to offer premium network access when millions of users continue to struggle with congestion and inconsistent connectivity?

The debate came into sharp focus during a discussion on AI With Sanket episode, where The Federal's Sanket Upadhyay spoke to Pranesh Prakash, tech law and policy researcher; NS Nappinai, Supreme Court advocate and founder of Cyber Saathi; and Parag Kar, telecom analyst and former Vice President, Government Affairs, India and South Asia, Qualcomm.

Also read: EPFO 3.0: How to withdraw PF amount via UPI, ATMs

The discussion centred on Airtel Priority, a service that promises improved network performance for postpaid customers during periods of congestion by leveraging 5G network slicing capabilities.

Net neutrality question

Introducing the issue, Upadhyay argued that Airtel’s marketing campaign suggests a scenario where some customers receive preferential treatment during network congestion while others continue to face connectivity challenges. He questioned whether this effectively creates two classes of users on the same network.

Prakash rejected the idea that Airtel’s offering constitutes a net neutrality violation. According to him, net neutrality concerns arise when telecom operators treat internet content, senders or receivers differently. In Airtel’s case, he argued, the differentiation is between customer tiers rather than content.

Also read: Nvidia unveils N1X chip for Windows PCs, takes on Intel, AMD and Qualcomm

“As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with net neutrality,” Prakash said. He compared the model to fixed-line broadband services, where customers routinely pay for different speeds and service guarantees without triggering net neutrality concerns.

He maintained that Airtel’s proposal amounts to different tiers of internet access service rather than discrimination against specific websites, applications or users based on content.

Public network slicing

Nappinai agreed that the issue may not fit neatly into the traditional net neutrality framework, but said the matter remains subject to regulatory scrutiny because it involves the slicing of a public network.

She noted that 5G technology enables network slicing in ways that were not possible with earlier generations of mobile networks. However, she pointed out that telecom operators themselves have approached the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) seeking clarity on whether such arrangements are permissible under existing licence conditions.

Also read: Nvidia boosts H-1B hiring as Meta, Google and Amazon scale back foreign recruitment

“The licensing terms decide what is permissible and impermissible,” Nappinai said.

She suggested that regulators are likely to allow some form of network slicing but may place limits on how much of a public network can be reserved for specialised or premium services.

According to Nappinai, the key regulatory challenge is determining how much preferential treatment can be granted without adversely affecting ordinary users. She argued that the debate should not revolve around whether premium services should exist, but rather around the extent to which they should be permitted.

Spectrum constraints

Kar argued that the debate is more complex than it appears because wireless networks operate differently from wired broadband systems.

He noted that when India’s net neutrality framework was debated and implemented, the focus was largely on content discrimination rather than user classification. As a result, the issue of prioritising one group of users over another was never fully addressed.

Kar explained that while different service tiers are common in wired broadband networks, wireless networks are constrained by spectrum availability. Unlike fibre connections, where capacity can be expanded relatively easily, wireless networks must operate within limited spectrum resources.

Also read: Boeing, Nvidia and more: India can easily buy $500-B US goods, says Goyal

“The wireless spectrum is constrained. You can’t expand the capacity of wireless spectrum just like you can do in the case of wireline,” he said.

While Kar said the law currently appears to permit Airtel’s service, he argued that regulators must ensure that premium users do not receive benefits at the expense of regular customers.

Quality floor

The discussion repeatedly returned to the issue of network congestion and whether Airtel’s service effectively monetises a problem that telecom operators should be solving.

Upadhyay argued that Airtel’s advertising campaign itself highlights situations where networks fail because of crowd density. He questioned whether creating a premium lane during such situations could worsen the experience for ordinary users.

Prakash responded that emergency services are governed separately under telecom licensing conditions and should not be affected by such offerings.

More broadly, he argued that regulators should focus on maintaining a minimum quality floor for all users rather than prohibiting service differentiation.

According to Prakash, TRAI already has mechanisms to define minimum quality standards. The challenge lies in enforcement, transparency and monitoring.

“The job of ensuring that the regular user has minimum quality of service is that of TRAI,” he said.

He added that competition and the continued presence of BSNL as a public-sector telecom operator are also important safeguards against poor service quality and excessive pricing.

Monetising congestion?

Kar raised a broader concern about India’s telecom infrastructure and spectrum policy.

He warned that if network congestion becomes a permanent feature of mobile connectivity, operators may be incentivised to monetise that congestion rather than eliminate it.

“In India, good quality service is the exception,” Kar said, arguing that consumers often feel compelled to pay extra to bypass queues and bottlenecks.

Also read: Govt drops plan to mandate Aadhaar app after phone makers cite concerns: Report

He stressed that the long-term solution lies in expanding network infrastructure, deploying more base stations, improving indoor coverage and making additional spectrum available at reasonable prices.

According to Kar, 5G introduces new capabilities and business models, but those capabilities require corresponding investments in infrastructure. Without those investments, network slicing risks becoming more of a marketing exercise than a meaningful technological advancement.

Regulatory balancing act

Nappinai said the debate ultimately comes down to balancing consumer rights with the commercial realities of running telecom networks.

She pointed to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2G spectrum judgment, which recognised spectrum as a public resource subject to regulation in the broader public interest.

That principle, she argued, remains relevant as regulators consider how much of a public network can be allocated to premium services.

“Profit is their right, but they must deliver the services they promise,” she said.

Nappinai urged regulators not to adopt a “launch first, fix later” approach. Instead, she argued that TRAI and DoT should proactively assess the impact of such services before allowing widespread deployment.

While the panellists differed on the regulatory implications of Airtel Priority, they broadly agreed on one point: the controversy has exposed a larger conversation about network quality, spectrum policy and the future of telecom services in India.

Whether Airtel’s move becomes an industry standard or prompts new regulatory safeguards, the debate over premium access versus universal service quality is unlikely to end anytime soon.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)