Telcos push back as TRAI’s voice‑only plan mandate sparks battle

TRAI’s draft amendment has triggered a sharp face-off: Jio, Airtel and Vi are resisting mandated cheap voice/SMS‑only packs as anti-consumer and technically flawed, while advocacy groups argue the move is essential to stop non-data users from cross-subsidising data-heavy subscribers.

What TRAI is proposing
TRAI’s Draft Telecom Consumer Protection (Thirteenth Amendment) Regulation, 2026 seeks to formalise and expand voice/SMS‑only options beyond the limited STVs currently in the market.

For every unique validity in bundled STVs (voice+SMS+data), operators would need to offer a corresponding voice+SMS‑only STV at proportionately lower tariffs, prominently displayed across channels and with shorter-duration options also available.

TRAI’s intent is to address persistent complaints that standalone voice/SMS packs are either unavailable or poorly marketed, especially for users who do not require or cannot use mobile data.

The consultation window runs through late April 2026, with an open-house discussion convened on 15 June 2026 to gather final stakeholder views before notifying the amendment.

Telcos’ core objections
Operators are asking TRAI to maintain tariff forbearance and not micro-prescribe plan architecture or pricing tiers.

They argue that mandating a whole class of plans at lower prices distorts the market, undermines investment returns (especially on 4G/5G) and goes against the long-standing principle of letting competition drive tariff innovation.

Technically, Jio’s line is that 4G/5G networks are all‑IP, where voice is just another application riding on the data bearer, so “separating” voice and data is artificial and operationally messy.

Operators also contend that excessively cheap, short-validity voice/SMS packs lower entry barriers for fraudsters and spammers, fueling unsolicited commercial communication and scams.

Their arguments on consumer harm
Telcos say usage patterns show that most entry-level customers are already using data, implying that demand for pure voice/SMS products is niche.

They warn that removing bundled data could backfire: background app activity, OS updates, and OTP pings could suddenly be billed at high pay‑as‑you‑go rates, creating bill-shock and more grievances, not fewer.

Airtel in particular is framing the issue as one of digital policy alignment, arguing that India’s digital public infrastructure is explicitly mobile‑data‑first and segmenting out a voice‑only base risks creating a structurally data‑excluded underclass.

In their view, the regulatory focus should be on driving affordable data-led inclusion rather than formalising a “non-data” category through dedicated packs.

Consumer groups’ counterpoints
Consumer advocacy bodies highlight that India still has roughly 300–350 million feature phone users, and estimates suggest 100–150 million among them do not use mobile data at all.

These users, they argue, are effectively subsidising data they neither need nor can access, paying collectively on the order of tens of thousands of crore rupees annually for unused data entitlements.

Groups like the Consumer Protection Association, Himmatnagar, stress that in many tribal, hilly and remote areas, network conditions make mobile data practically unusable, yet the only viable recharge options bundle in data.

They also point out that the effective per‑GB price on low‑value entry packs (₹94–99/GB) is significantly higher than in larger, premium plans, contradicting telco claims of uniform affordability and raising distributional concerns.

Regulatory backdrop and trajectory
TRAI has previously intervened on data transparency and bill-shock mitigation, mandating usage alerts and explicit consent for data activation through earlier Consumer Protection amendments.

In 2024 and early 2025, it pushed operators to at least list some voice/SMS‑only STVs, following which Jio, Airtel and Vi introduced and tweaked long‑validity voice-only plans in the ₹400–1,900 range.

However, TRAI’s latest draft notes that actual availability and discoverability of such packs remain limited, especially in shorter tenures, justifying the move to a more prescriptive, parity-based framework.

The consultation now effectively tests how far the regulator is willing to go in curbing tariff forbearance in the name of protecting a sizeable non-data consumer base.

CT Bureau