The Indian telecom sector has undergone significant consolidation, shrinking from a multitude of players to just four. Among these, only two can be considered market leaders, while the remaining two are struggling to stay afloat. Over time, the two market leaders have captured a substantial share of both the revenue and subscriber base.
This article aims to compare Indian telecom players across key dimensions of business—spectrum holdings, subscriber base, and revenue market share—across their operating circles. Such an analysis provides insights into their relative positions, highlighting the circles they are most focused on.
Additionally, we will examine cases where operators have achieved higher market shares in revenue or subscribers relative to the spectrum they hold. This is particularly significant, as the scarcity of spectrum necessitates deploying more towers to maintain service quality, thereby increasing operational costs. Failure to do so could result in network congestion and degraded service quality.
Finally, we will explore interesting anomalies where operators have secured a higher revenue share in circles despite a relatively smaller subscriber base, uncovering strategies that may be driving this phenomenon.
Methodology for Calculating Spectrum Market Share
Before delving into the analysis, it is essential to outline the foundational assumptions used to calculate market share, particularly for spectrum and revenue. These dimensions are aggregated under different heads, making direct linear addition unfeasible without adjustments.
For the spectrum dimension, holdings are spread across multiple bands: 700, 800, 900, 1800, 2100, 2300, 2500, 3500, and 26000 MHz. Each band has distinct propagation characteristics (i.e., coverage range from the BTS) and operates in two modes: FDD (Frequency Division Duplex) and TDD (Time Division Duplex). FDD utilizes two separate paths (uplink and downlink), whereas TDD uses only one. Consequently, to align TDD bands with FDD, the TDD spectrum is halved for calculation purposes.
To further address the unequal propagation characteristics of different bands, weights have been assigned based on their coverage efficiency. These weights allow spectrum holdings to be aggregated effectively across bands.
The weights applied are:
700 MHz: 1.0, 800 MHz: 1.0, 900 MHz: 1.0, 1800 MHz: 0.75, 2100 MHz: 0.75, 2300 MHz: 0.66, 2500 MHz: 0.66, 3500 MHz: 0.5.
The 26000 MHz band has been excluded from the market share calculation, as it remains fallow and unused at this stage.
Methodology for Calculating Revenue Market Share
At first glance, calculating revenue market share might seem straightforward, but it is far from trivial. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) reports revenues under different license heads, some of which—like the Unified License (UL)—are mapped to specific circles. However, revenues for NLD (National Long Distance), ILD (International Long Distance), and Pan-India ISP are reported as aggregated Pan-India figures, without a circle-wise breakdown.
This creates a challenge in comparison, as some operators—such as Bharti and VI—report a significant portion of their revenue under these Pan-India categories. In contrast, RJIO bundles its NLD and ILD revenues across circles under the UL head, as per TRAI’s reporting structure. This inconsistency complicates the process of evaluating revenue market share across operators and circles.
To address this issue, I have proportionately distributed all Pan-India revenues (like NLD and ILD) across individual circles in the ratio of their respective circle-level revenue distribution. This adjustment allows for a more accurate and consistent comparison of revenue market share across operators and operating circles.
Methodology for Calculating Subscriber Market Share
Calculating subscriber market share is relatively straightforward compared to the previous two dimensions, as TRAI reports subscriber numbers mapped directly to individual circles.
However, for the purpose of this analysis, I have excluded wireline subscribers when calculating market share. While wireline subscribers contribute to revenue, they do not impact spectrum utilization, which is the primary focus here.
To account for this distinction, I have created a separate column that maps the percentage of wireline subscribers to the total subscribers an operator has in each specific circle. This adjustment ensures that the subscriber market share calculations remain focused on wireless operations while still providing insights into the overall subscriber mix.
Bharti Analysis
With the methodology for estimating market share across the three business dimensions now established, let us analyze Bharti’s performance across its operating circles. The matrix below provides a consolidated snapshot of Bharti’s market share across spectrum, subscriber, and revenue dimensions, along with the proportion of wireline subscribers to the total subscriber base.
For consistency, the table has been sorted in descending order based on spectrum market share, which is displayed first after the column for wireline subscriber percentage. This ordering highlights circles where Bharti has a stronger foothold in spectrum holdings, serving as a foundation for its overall performance across the other dimensions.
Bharti holds a spectrum market share of 31% or more in six Category B and C circles: Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, North East, and Orissa. In most of these, subscriber market share aligns with spectrum holdings, except in Orissa, where Bharti’s 34.4% subscriber share translates into a disproportionately higher 39.3% revenue share, likely driven by higher ARPU. Similarly, in Karnataka, despite a lower 30.2% spectrum share, Bharti achieves 47.8% subscriber and 55.3% revenue shares, supported by 3.78% wireline density. Circles like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Rajasthan, and UP East show efficient monetization, where Bharti maintains a strong revenue share despite lower spectrum and subscriber holdings. Notably, in Delhi, Bharti’s 10.87% wireline subscriber density enables it to achieve a 42.3% revenue share despite a mere 27% spectrum share. However, Bharti underperforms in key circles like Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Mumbai, and Kerala, where both subscriber and revenue market shares remain weak, reflecting areas requiring strategic attention.
RJIO Analysis
RJIO’s table is similarly structure as Bharti which is pasted below.
RJIO holds a spectrum market share of over 33% in circles like Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, and Karnataka, with strong performances in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. In Madhya Pradesh, RJIO’s 54.9% subscriber share and 56.5% revenue share reflect its dominance, while in Orissa, a 45.3% subscriber share translates into a 50.1% revenue share, indicating high ARPU generation.
However, RJIO struggles in some important circles like Karnataka where, despite holding 33.4% spectrum share, its revenue share drops to 29.4%, suggesting inefficiencies or competitive pressure. Circles like Mumbai and Kerala reveal similar weaknesses—low revenue shares of 25.1% and 27%, respectively, despite reasonable spectrum and subscriber holdings.
On the other hand, RJIO outperforms in circles like Gujarat, West Bengal, and Bihar, where its strong subscriber market shares (41.9–46.3%) are reflected in robust revenue shares (43.3–47.7%). In Delhi, RJIO maintains a balanced position with a 30.9% spectrum share, 34.9% subscriber share, and 34.8% revenue share, indicating consistent performance.
RJIO’s weaker circles include Mumbai, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab, where both subscriber and revenue shares remain muted despite moderate spectrum holdings. These gaps highlight areas where operational focus is needed to improve monetization.
VI Analysis
VI’s performance is captured in the table pasted below.
VI’s performance across spectrum, subscriber, and revenue dimensions reveals a mixed picture, with notable strengths in key circles despite its delayed 5G rollout.
In circles like Gujarat, Kerala, Mumbai, and Delhi, VI has managed to maintain a relatively higher subscriber share—30.9% in Gujarat, 31.9% in Kerala, 31.7% in Mumbai, and 29.6% in Delhi—despite holding only moderate spectrum shares and facing the competitive disadvantage of not launching 5G services. This reflects VI’s ability to retain a loyal subscriber base and monetize existing networks effectively. For instance, in Kerala, VI’s 24.2% spectrum share translates to a strong 32.4% revenue share, indicating efficient utilization of its 4G network.
However, in most other circles, VI’s performance falters, with spectrum holdings below 20% and subscriber shares in single digits. Circles like Karnataka, Bihar, Assam, North East, Orissa, Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh stand out as areas of significant underperformance, where VI struggles to compete both in subscriber retention and revenue generation. For instance, in Himachal Pradesh, VI’s spectrum share is just 7.6%, resulting in a dismal 4.4% subscriber share and 3.2% revenue share.
The absence of 5G has exacerbated VI’s challenges, limiting its ability to attract high-value subscribers and compete with market leaders in revenue growth. While VI shows resilience in select markets like Gujarat, Kerala, Mumbai, and Delhi, the operator will need to accelerate its 5G rollout and strengthen its spectrum position to sustain its market share and improve monetization across weaker circles.
BSNL & MTNL Analysis
BSNL and MTNL’s performance is captured in the table pasted below.
BSNL’s performance across spectrum, subscriber, and revenue dimensions highlights its ongoing struggles, particularly in the face of a significantly delayed 4G rollout. Despite being allocated vast spectrum resources by the government and recent announcements of substantial CAPEX investments, BSNL has failed to make a meaningful impact in the market.
While BSNL holds moderate to high spectrum shares across most circles—ranging from 17.4% to 23.5%—its spectrum remains largely underutilized, reflected in its consistently low subscriber and revenue market shares. For instance, in Himachal Pradesh (HP) and Delhi (DL), where BSNL has spectrum shares of 23.5% and 23%, its subscriber market shares are a meager 18.7% and 3%, respectively.
The situation is even more concerning in circles like Mumbai (MU), where despite holding 21.9% spectrum, BSNL’s subscriber share stands at just 0.7%. While wireline subscribers account for a significant 83.14% of total subscribers in Mumbai, this fails to translate into meaningful revenue, which is limited to 19%.
In better-performing circles like Kerala (KE), BSNL shows some resilience, holding a 20.3% spectrum share, a 21% subscriber share, and a relatively better 15.1% revenue share. However, such instances remain exceptions rather than the rule.
Overall, BSNL continues to hemorrhage subscribers and revenue market share across most circles, with subscriber shares in single digits in critical markets like Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, and the North East. This underscores the inability to leverage its spectrum holdings effectively, rendering much of its allocated spectrum idle at significant government CAPEX cost. Without an accelerated and competitive 4G launch, BSNL’s challenges will likely deepen, further eroding its already fragile market position.
Conclusion
A comparison of all four telecom players—Bharti, RJIO, VI, and BSNL—reveals clear disparities in their performance across spectrum, subscriber, and revenue dimensions.
Bharti and RJIO emerge as the market leaders, efficiently converting their spectrum holdings into higher subscriber and revenue shares, particularly in key circles. Bharti stands out for its strong performance in revenue generation, even in circles where its spectrum share is relatively lower, while RJIO’s dominance in subscriber and revenue shares highlights its aggressive expansion and monetization strategies.
In contrast, VI, despite holding a higher subscriber share in select circles like Gujarat, Kerala, Mumbai, and Delhi, continues to face challenges due to its delayed 5G rollout and weak financial standing. BSNL, on the other hand, remains the weakest player, with significant government-allocated spectrum lying idle due to its prolonged delays in launching 4G. This has resulted in continued erosion of both subscriber and revenue market shares.
While spectrum is more or less evenly distributed, the disproportionate market and revenue shares taken by Bharti and RJIO indicate growing pressure on their spectrum usage capacity, particularly in circles with high usage density. This could lead to network congestion and deteriorating service quality.
To address this, the government must prioritize making low-frequency spectrum—which has higher propagation efficiency—available at affordable prices to Bharti and RJIO. This will help improve overall network quality and coverage, particularly in high-density circles, ensuring a better telecom experience for consumers.
