Parag Kar, former Qualcomm Vice President for Government Affairs (India and South Asia), and a telecom expert, explained how TRAI’s recently proposed 80% rule could impact regular users if telcos throttle the network. Here are the major points raised by Kar. You can watch the full video on Parag Kar’s YouTube channel. 

VIDEO

What is TRAI’s proposed 80% rule? On August 5, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a Consultation Paper proposing amendments to existing telecom Quality of Service (QoS) regulations, including for 5G network slicing. Among other proposals, TRAI said that the network’s Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilisation shouldn’t cross 80%. If the usage crosses 80% at least five times a month, then the telecom companies should restore the capacity or remove that cell from offering network slicing services. 

TRAI intends to monitor the busy-hour traffic of cells involving network slicing: “It [the 80% Rule] applies to cell sites participating in sliced applications. Such cells should not operate above 80% of their capacity. If they breach 80%, the operator must augment capacity. The operator may add spectrum or deploy more cell sites. If repeated breaches continue, that cell must be removed from slicing. This rule is intended to protect ordinary users. But instead of protecting them, it could harm them,” said Parag Kar. 

“80% is a congestion alarm, not a fairness test. Physical Resource Blocks measure how a 5G base station uses capacity. They do not reveal how capacity is divided between user groups. They cannot show how much is available to ordinary or premium users. Without that split, how can fairness to ordinary users be established? The metric shows total radio-resource use, not each group’s share. A cell can remain below 80% and still treat ordinary users unfairly.” – Parag Kar, Telecom expert

What is scheduling in telecom and why does it matter? “It decides which waiting mobile user receives the next radio block. A base station serves phones through successive Physical Resource Blocks (PRB),” explained Kar.  

He said the telecom scheduler decides:

• which of the waiting users gets each next block;
• how many blocks each user receives;
• how long a user waits before being served again; and 
• determines each user’s share of the total capacity.

“Scheduling is how often and by how much the tower serves each waiting user,” he explained.

How genuine demand can expose a capacity shortage: “Assume that the cell has a total capacity of 100 units. Ordinary users demand 70 units and premium users demand 20. Total demand is 90, which breaches the 80% limit. The correct response is to augment capacity before monetising slicing,” Kar said. 

“But how can genuine 90% demand appear to be only 75%? Ordinary users want 70 units while premium users want 20. Together, their genuine demand is 90 units. Now, suppose the operator applies a rate limit to ordinary traffic. 15 units of ordinary demand are delayed or suppressed. This restriction is entirely within the operator’s control. Only 55 of the 70 ordinary units are actually served. Meanwhile, all 20 units of premium demand are served. The cell now appears to use only 75%, rather than the genuine 90% demand. It therefore appears compliant with TRAI’s 80% limit. But is it fair when the operator has suppressed ordinary traffic?”

“Throttling has made 90% demand look like only 75% utilisation. This throttling may never appear on TRAI’s radar. TRAI measures only the utilisation of the total PRBs. As long as recorded utilisation stays below 80%, the cell appears compliant. Yet the full demand of ordinary users may remain unserved. The rule may incentivise operators not to serve that demand,” – Parag Kar

“The meter looks compliant because ordinary demand never reached the cell. An operator could avoid investment by throttling ordinary users instead. The 80% rule could therefore cause throttling that might not otherwise occur,” he further added. 

What can TRAI do? Parag Kar gave the following points as suggestions on what TRAI could do to protect normal users: 

1. Test capacity before launching network slicing; ‘don’t launch slicing first and discover the shortage later’: “Test real capacity before slicing changes the incentive. Before slicing begins, TRAI should require capacity tests for every cell. Test whether the unsliced cell breaches the 80% limit. That reveals whether the cell is genuinely congested. Before slicing, the operator has no premium lever to suppress ordinary demand. TRAI can identify which base stations genuinely breach 80%. Those cells should receive more spectrum or additional sites. If capacity cannot be added, remove that cell from slicing. Do not launch slicing first and discover the shortage later. TRAI has not explicitly required this pre-slicing 80% baseline test.”

2. ‘TRAI, not the operator, must cap the premium advantage’: “Signal conditions can naturally produce very different speeds. Speed comparisons are meaningful only at the same location and conditions. Assume the ordinary user’s scheduling weight is 1. After careful testing, the premium weight might illustratively be 1.2. TRAI and operators must test whether that ratio preserves adequate capacity. The chosen ratio must not cause cells to breach the 80% rule. This requires joint statistical analysis by TRAI and the operator. The result will depend on spectrum holdings and cell-site capacity. The premium weight must be jointly fixed, not left entirely to the operator. Premium users may get preference, but ordinary users cannot be pushed far back.”

3. TRAI should monitor every minute for breaches: “Minute-level monitoring is essential to detect and correct breaches. Repeated breaches require more capacity or suspension of premium slicing. Suppose a cell previously reached 75% load during the busy hour. Premium scheduling preference may push its utilisation to 80%. If the limit is repeatedly crossed, the operator must add capacity. That is necessary if the operator wants to retain a 1.2 scheduling ratio. Without such controls, operators could set scheduling preferences arbitrarily. Ordinary users could then be squeezed to favour premium users.”

4. No hidden throttling: The principle is simple: monetise extra capacity, not congestion. Build capacity first, then set scheduling to benefit premium users fairly. Premium benefits must never come at the expense of ordinary users. Set a TRAI-fixed limit, prohibit throttling, and correct breaches every minute. Operators may monetise genuine spare capacity, but not by squeezing ordinary users,” he concluded.  

TRAI is currently seeking comments and feedback on the consultation paper from stakeholders, including telecom service providers, industry bodies and consumers. Access the paper PDF here.

• Submission deadline: August 26, 2026
• Counter comments deadline: September 7, 2026
• Comments must be submitted in a specified format to: [email protected]

Also Read: