Download PDF copy at: - https://tinyurl.com/5brw25uj
FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF 90,000KM FIBRE OPTIC CABLES IN A NON-DUPLICATING INFRASTRUCTURE OR TELECOM CO-SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE OR OPEN ACCESS MODEL AND IN UNPROFITABLE AND UNDESERVED AREAS.
BY
PROF
MUHAMMED TAWFIQ LADAN
TELECOM
POLICY, LEGAL, REGULATORY AND LICENSING EXPERT.
EMAIL:
- mtladan@gmail.com
GSM:
- 08037015634
INTRODUCTION
The
Policy issue Brief is to examine how a non-duplicating infrastructure model,
telecom Co-sharing arrangements, open access model and targeted investments in
unprofitable and underserved areas can collectively contribute to a more
efficient, cost-effective, and inclusive broadband expansion, while minimizing
costs and resource wastage in Nigeria.
FRAMEWORK
FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF 90,000 KM FIBRE OPTIC CABLES IN A NON- DUPLICATING
INFRASTRUCTURE OR TELECOM CO-SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE OR OPEN ACCESS MODEL AND IN
UNPROFITABLE AND UNDESERVED AREAS.
Introduction
The
deployment of 90,000 kilometres of fibre optic cables in Nigeria represents a
significant step towards enhancing broadband penetration, fostering digital
inclusion, and accelerating economic growth.[1]
As the country continues to embrace digital transformation, the availability of
high-speed internet is essential for improving access to education, healthcare,
financial services, and e-governance. However, achieving efficient and
sustainable deployment of fibre optic infrastructure requires a strategic
approach that avoids unnecessary duplication, promotes shared infrastructure,
and ensures connectivity in underserved and commercially unviable areas. One of
the key considerations in this deployment is the establishment of a non-duplicating
infrastructure strategy. In many instances, multiple telecom operators lay
separate fibre optic networks along the same routes, leading to inefficiencies,
increased costs, and resource wastage. A well-coordinated approach that
prevents redundancy can optimize investments and ensure more extensive coverage
with fewer infrastructure overlaps.
Additionally,
the implementation of a telecom co-sharing infrastructure model is
critical to maximizing the utilization of deployed fibre optic networks. By
encouraging multiple service providers to share a common network backbone,
telecom operators can reduce capital expenditure, lower operational costs, and
extend connectivity to more areas without unnecessary duplication of
infrastructure. This collaborative approach fosters competition, improves
service delivery, and makes broadband services more affordable for end users.
Furthermore, adopting an open-access model is essential for ensuring
fair and non-discriminatory access to fibre optic infrastructure. This model
allows multiple internet service providers (ISPs) to use the same network,
thereby promoting competition and preventing monopolistic control over critical
digital infrastructure. By facilitating greater market participation, an
open-access framework can drive innovation, improve service quality, and lead
to competitive pricing that benefits consumers and businesses.
Beyond
the technical and economic aspects of fibre optic deployment, addressing the digital
divide in unprofitable and underserved areas is a crucial priority. Many
rural and remote communities in Nigeria remain without reliable internet access
due to the high costs and low financial returns associated with infrastructure
deployment in these regions. A sustainable strategy must include policy
incentives, public-private partnerships, and targeted government interventions
to bridge this gap.[2] Investing
in these areas will not only enhance digital inclusion but also unlock economic
opportunities, drive social development, and support national growth
objectives. This research explores these critical aspects in greater detail,
examining how a non-duplicating infrastructure model, telecom co-sharing
arrangements, open-access principles, and targeted investments in underserved
areas can collectively contribute to a more efficient, cost-effective, and
inclusive broadband expansion in Nigeria while minimizing costs and resource
wastage.
Non-Duplicating
Infrastructure: In this context, non-duplicating
infrastructure refers to a strategic approach where new fibre networks avoid
overlapping with existing infrastructure, instead leveraging available ducts or
pathways. This principle is reinforced under the Infrastructure Company
(InfraCo) Framework, which discourages unnecessary duplication to optimize
costs and minimize urban disruption.[3]
This
model involves multiple service providers sharing physical infrastructure such
as towers, fiber-optic cables, and power supplies, thereby reducing redundant
investments and minimizing environmental impact.[4]
By leveraging existing infrastructure, operators can lower capital and
operational expenditures while accelerating network deployment, particularly in
underserved regions. This approach aligns with global efforts to promote
digital inclusion and optimize resource utilization in the telecom sector.[5]
In
rural and remote areas, non-duplicating infrastructure plays a critical role in
bridging the digital divide. Deploying telecom networks in these regions is
often economically unviable for individual operators due to low population
density and high deployment costs. Infrastructure sharing enables operators to
pool resources, making it feasible to extend connectivity to marginalized communities.[6]
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have been instrumental in facilitating such
initiatives, with governments providing policy support and incentives to
encourage collaboration among telecom stakeholders.[7]
The
deployment of 90,000 kilometres of fibre optic cables in Nigeria presents a
transformative opportunity to expand broadband penetration, improve digital
connectivity, and drive economic growth. [8]However,
one of the major challenges facing the Nigerian telecom sector is the
duplication of infrastructure, where multiple operators independently lay fibre
optic networks along the same routes. This results in high costs, environmental
disruption, and uneven network coverage. To ensure sustainable and
cost-effective broadband expansion, Nigeria must adopt a non-duplicating
infrastructure strategy that promotes shared resources, collaborative
deployment, and regulatory oversight. In Nigeria, major telecom providers such
as MTN, Airtel, and Glo have historically developed their fibre optic networks independently,
leading to excessive duplication along major urban corridors while rural and
underserved areas remain disconnected. This approach results in significant
inefficiencies, including higher costs, as the independent deployment of fibre
networks increases capital expenditure for each operator, ultimately raising
the cost of internet services for consumers. Repeated excavation for multiple
fibre installations causes unnecessary damage to roads and landscapes, leading
to additional maintenance costs for the government and local authorities. While
urban centers experience network saturation, rural and underserved regions
suffer from inadequate or nonexistent broadband infrastructure, exacerbating
the digital divide.
To
address these challenges, Nigeria needs a well-coordinated approach that
ensures efficient fibre optic deployment while avoiding redundancy. The
Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and other regulatory bodies should
mandate telecom operators to share data on existing fibre optic deployments. A
centralized infrastructure database can help track installed networks, identify
gaps, and prevent unnecessary duplication. One of the major barriers to
efficient fibre deployment in Nigeria is the high cost and bureaucratic delays
associated with obtaining right-of-way permits. Implementing a standardized,
low-cost right-of-way framework will encourage operators to share
infrastructure and avoid redundant deployments. The government should enforce
regulations that require telecom operators to share existing fibre networks,
particularly in high-density areas. This can be achieved through public-private
partnerships and incentive programs that reward collaboration.
A
government-backed national fibre optic backbone should be expanded to provide a
shared infrastructure that multiple telecom providers can leverage. This model
has been successfully implemented in countries like Kenya and South Africa,[9] leading to
reduced costs and wider broadband accessibility. While major cities benefit
from fibre network saturation, rural and economically unviable regions remain
underserved. The government should implement subsidy programs and tax
incentives to encourage fibre deployment in these areas, ensuring nationwide
digital inclusion. By adopting a coordinated and non-duplicating fibre optic
deployment strategy, Nigeria stands to gain cost reduction as shared
infrastructure lowers capital and operational expenses for telecom operators,
leading to more affordable internet services. Reduced duplication allows for more
efficient allocation of resources, accelerating broadband rollout across the
country. A well-planned fibre network ensures better connectivity, increased
competition, and enhanced internet speed. Minimizing redundant excavations and
infrastructure developments reduces environmental damage and urban congestion.
The
deployment of 90,000 kilometres of fibre optic cables in Nigeria must be guided
by a non-duplicating infrastructure strategy to ensure cost efficiency, optimal
resource utilization, and equitable broadband access. By fostering
collaboration among telecom operators, implementing regulatory frameworks that
support infrastructure sharing, and prioritizing deployment in underserved
areas, Nigeria can achieve sustainable digital expansion and bridge the
connectivity gap for millions of its citizens.
Despite
its advantages, challenges such as regulatory fragmentation, competitive
concerns, and technical interoperability issues can hinder the widespread
adoption of co-sharing models. To address these barriers, stakeholders must
establish clear governance frameworks, standardized agreements, and
dispute-resolution mechanisms.[10]
Furthermore, emerging technologies like 5G and IoT necessitate advanced
infrastructure-sharing models to accommodate increased network demands. As the
telecom industry evolves, non-duplicating infrastructure will remain a key
strategy for sustainable and inclusive digital growth.[11]
Telecom
Co-Sharing Infrastructure: Furthermore, telecom
co-sharing infrastructure entails multiple service providers jointly utilizing
passive (e.g., ducts, towers) or active (e.g., fibre lines, transmission
equipment) telecom assets. The NBP actively promotes this model to reduce
deployment expenses,[12] while the
Nigerian Communications Act of 2003 and Infrastructure Sharing Regulations of
2019 mandate operators to adopt shared infrastructure where feasible.[13]
Co-sharing infrastructure is particularly beneficial in densely populated urban
areas where space and regulatory constraints limit the proliferation of
duplicate telecom structures. In such environments, infrastructure sharing can
mitigate visual pollution, reduce energy consumption, and enhance service
quality through optimized network management.[14]
Additionally, regulatory frameworks in many countries now mandate or
incentivize infrastructure sharing to foster competition and prevent market
monopolies. For instance, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has
implemented policies encouraging tower-sharing among mobile network operators
to reduce costs and improve coverage.[15]
The
global telecommunications market is a huge one, representing millions of
consumers catered to by hundreds of telecom service providers. Thus a
competitive industry with various players vying with one another for the
growing telecommunications market. Besides being a very competitive industry,
the telecommunications sector is also a highly
investment-intensiveinvestment-intensive industry. Indeed, the nature of
telecommunications equipment and infrastructure required for providing high-end
telecommunications services capable of wide outreach means that the industry is
going to have to deploy huge amounts of capital.[16]
The gestational nature of these investments means that the particular telecom
company is going to have to sustain significant financial losses till it can
break even. This can be a potential entry barrier for companies interested in
making an entry into the telecom market, hence the need for infrastructure
sharing. [17]
“infrastructure
sharing” according to the World Development Report, infrastructure sharing in
the telecommunications sector can be understood as the joint utilization of
assets and/or services necessary to provide telecommunication service.It also
refers to the process of having two or more operators come together to share
various parts of their network infrastructure for the purposes of their service
provisioning. [18]Co-sharing
of telecom infrastructure is a globally recognized model that enables multiple
service providers to use a single physical infrastructure. This approach
significantly reduces capital and operational expenditures while improving
service delivery. In Nigeria, the deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables
presents a unique opportunity to leverage co-sharing strategies to ensure cost-effective
and widespread broadband penetration. Initiatives such as the Infrastructure
Company (InfraCo) framework aim to promote co-sharing of fibre optic networks
to maximize the impact of this massive deployment. By leveraging a shared
network model, telecom operators can minimize costs, optimize resource
utilization, and accelerate the expansion of broadband connectivity across the
country, in line with the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) regulations
and guidelines on infrastructure sharing.
There
are key infrastructures that can be shared by providers. Telecom infrastructure
that is used by a telecom service provider can be classified into two types:
passive and active. They are differentiated by the electronic/non-electronic
nature of the components. Passive Infrastructure refers to
non-electronic infrastructure such as towers, sites, air-conditioning
equipment, diesel-electric generators, battery, electrical supply, technical
shelters, equipment rooms, premises, security systems, billing systems, poles,
ducts, trays and power systems. In passive site sharing, a common site is
shared between operators to host the Base Transceiver Station (BTS), share
space in a shelter or transmission room etc. What is not shared is the antennae
and separate feeder cables which each operator has of its own. Given the nature
of passive site sharing, exit from such an arrangement is easy and chances of
dispute between operators are minimal. For these reasons, this is the simplest
version of the site sharing." Passive infrastructure sharing is also
highly preferred by telecom companies world over as it accounts for the larger
chunk of rollout costs.[19] Active
Infrastructure refers to the active electronic infrastructure/ elements such as
base tower station, microwave radio equipment, switches, antennas, spectrum,
signal transceivers, and antennae. Active infrastructure is basically
the infrastructure necessary for the reception, processing and/or transmission
of telecommunication signal. There are different sub-categories of active
infrastructure sharing and they are Radio Access Network (RAN) sharing;
spectrum sharing; and virtual network operations. [20]Sharing
of active infrastructure has not been that popular world over. There are
various reasons for this, the most important being the increased
inter-dependence between the service providers, which may reduce their
competitive edge.[21] This
could also lead to situation where competitors end up colluding on prices or
service offering and lead to elimination of consumer choice.[22] When it
comes to active infrastructure sharing, conditions of competition in the market
are the main consideration. [23]
One
of the primary advantages of telecom co-sharing infrastructure in the
deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables is the substantial reduction in
deployment costs for service providers. The independent laying of fibre optic
cables by multiple telecom companies often results in unnecessary duplication,
leading to increased capital expenditure. By adopting a shared infrastructure
model in this large-scale project, telecom operators can collectively invest in
a single, high-quality network while reducing individual financial burdens.
This cost-sharing mechanism enables companies to allocate more resources to
improving service quality, network maintenance, and expansion into underserved
areas, aligning with the NCC’s objectives to promote cost efficiency and wider
broadband access.
Another
key benefit of telecom co-sharing in the 90,000 km fibre optic cable deployment
is the reduction of environmental and urban disruptions. The repeated
excavation of roads and landscapes to lay separate fibre optic cables
contributes to infrastructure degradation and increased maintenance costs. The
NCC’s Infrastructure Sharing and Co-Location Guidelines encourage operators to
utilize existing ducts, poles, and shared pathways to minimize environmental
impact and improve urban planning. Compliance with these guidelines in this
large-scale deployment will ensure that network expansion is conducted in a
more organized and sustainable manner, preventing unnecessary duplication and
urban congestion.The adoption of a co-sharing model in the rollout of 90,000 km
of fibre optic cables facilitates faster broadband penetration, particularly in
remote and underserved regions. By pooling resources and sharing network
infrastructure, telecom operators can extend broadband coverage more
efficiently and cost-effectively. This shared investment strategy allows
companies to focus on expanding their reach into areas that would otherwise be
considered financially unviable due to high deployment costs. Increased
broadband access in these regions fosters digital inclusion, supports economic
activities, and promotes overall national development, which aligns with the
NCC’s National Broadband Plan (NBP) objectives of increasing broadband
penetration and bridging the digital divide.
Telecom
co-sharing also enhances competition and consumer choice in the context of the
90,000 km fibre optic cable deployment. When multiple service providers have
access to a shared fibre optic network, they can compete on service quality,
pricing, and customer experience rather than on infrastructure ownership. [24]This
fosters a more dynamic telecom market where consumers benefit from improved
service offerings, lower costs, and greater network reliability. The NCC
mandates non-discriminatory access to shared infrastructure to ensure fair
competition, thereby encouraging innovation and investment in value-added
services that ultimately improve the overall telecommunications sector in
Nigeria.
For
successful implementation of a telecom co-sharing infrastructure in the
deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables, the government must establish
favorable policies and regulatory frameworks that support collaboration among
industry players. Incentives such as tax benefits, financial support, and
reduced right-of-way fees should be introduced to encourage operators to
participate in shared infrastructure initiatives. The NCC should continue to
play a central role in facilitating agreements between telecom providers,
ensuring that access to shared infrastructure is fair, transparent, and
non-discriminatory. By fostering a conducive regulatory environment and
promoting strategic partnerships, Nigeria can maximize the benefits of telecom
co-sharing and achieve its broadband expansion goals efficiently while adhering
to the NCC’s guidelines on
infrastructure sharing and broadband deployment. Sharing of active
infrastructure has not been that popular world over. There are various reasons
for this, the most important being the increased inter-dependence between the
service providers, which may reduce their competitive edge.[25]
This could also lead to situation where competitors end up colluding on prices
or service offering and lead to elimination of consumer choice.[26]When it
comes to active infrastructure sharing, conditions of competition in the market
are the main consideration. Regulators may disallow sharing of active
infrastructure for the reason that if operators are permitted to pool or share
the infrastructure then the group can get added advantage in the deployment of
services. In such a scenario, the level playing field is disturbed and
conditions of competition in the sector are affected.
Cross-Sector
Infrastructure Co-Deployment: - It is pertinent to state cross-sector
infrastructure co-deployment can help in closing digital connectivity gaps
through collaboration and sharing. It may be important to ask “if
the New SPV 90,000 Km Fibre optic cables can be deployed on the existing electric power
transmission company infrastructure that is constantly vandalized , stolen and
sabotaged in Nigeria as a critical national Infrastructure ? Infrastructure
co-deployment and sharing between sectors is an effective and proven strategy
to expand service coverage and reduce the aggregate costs of deployment.
Co-deployment of fiber-optic cables or mobile towers alongside linear
infrastructure such as railways, roads, water, sewage systems, and power
transmission lines is a particularly pertinent approach to accelerate the
rollout of digital connectivity and help future-proof the infrastructure
assets.[27]
However, in practice, suboptimal levels of infrastructure co-deployment and
sharing exist because of various market, institutional, and regulatory barriers
and in the case of Nigeria vandalism,[28] and
sabotage of critical national infrastructure contribute to challenges that will
affect cross-sector infrastructure deployment. The proposed deployment of
90,000 km of fibre optic cables through Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) on
Nigeria's existing electric power transmission infrastructure faces significant
challenges due to the persistent issues of vandalism, theft, and sabotage.
Despite the infrastructure's designation as a critical national asset by the
Federal Government,[29]
the security and maintenance of these power lines remain precarious. The
integration of fibre optic cables into this vulnerable infrastructure could
exacerbate the risks of further damage, hindering the successful rollout of
this ambitious telecom project. The continued threats to the power grid
underscore the urgent need for a robust security framework to safeguard both
power and communication networks in the country.[30]
Open
Access Model: Additionally, the open access model
ensures that telecom infrastructure is made available to all licensed operators
on a fair, non-discriminatory, and transparent pricing basis. The InfraCo
Licensing Framework under the NBP adopts this model to foster competition and
equitable broadband access nationwide.[31]
The
Open Access Model is a regulatory and operational framework designed to promote
competition and innovation in telecommunications and broadband markets by
ensuring non-discriminatory access to essential infrastructure. Under this
model, infrastructure owners—such as fiber-optic networks, submarine cables, or
tower operators—are required to lease capacity to multiple service providers at
fair and transparent rates.[32] This
approach prevents monopolistic control and encourages market entry by smaller
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and new entrants, fostering a more
competitive and inclusive digital ecosystem.[33]
Countries like South Africa and Kenya have adopted open access policies to
enhance broadband penetration and reduce costs for end-users.[34]
A
key advantage of the Open Access Model is its ability to reduce infrastructure
duplication, leading to more efficient resource utilization and lower
deployment costs. By allowing multiple operators to share existing
networks—such as dark fiber or wholesale broadband platforms—the model
minimizes capital expenditure (CAPEX) barriers for new market players.[35] This is
particularly beneficial in underserved rural and peri-urban areas, where high
deployment costs often deter private investment.[36]
Furthermore, open access networks can accelerate the rollout of next-generation
technologies like 5G and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH), as infrastructure sharing
enables faster and more cost-effective expansion.[37]
The
open access model is designed to ensure that fibre optic networks are
accessible to all licensed telecom providers on a fair and non-discriminatory
basis.[38] This
model eliminates monopolistic control of telecom infrastructure and encourages
competition, leading to better services and lower costs for end-users[39]. By
separating infrastructure ownership from service provision, the open access
framework fosters an environment where multiple service providers can utilize a
shared network without the burden of heavy capital investment in new
infrastructure.
There
is no uniform definition of the term “open broadband access” or “open
networks”, as the terms are used by different stakeholders in different
contexts. The term may be applied to networks that are said to be open, for
example, at different layers of networks (e.g. Layer 1 and 2). Nonetheless, it
is widely believed that most stakeholders using these terms do refer to common
features, such as transparency or non-discrimination, which involve at least a
common starting point for understanding the use of the term “open access” and
provides a starting point for considering what stakeholders mean by open
access. [40]Open
access arrangements will play a major role in shaping the level of competition
in next generation access (NGA) networks. Some of the access remedies that were
available to regulators for traditional broadband may no longer be technically
or economically viable for fibre networks. As it is unclear whether there will
be sufficient infrastructure competition, especially outside very densely settled
urban areas, the question of how to promote competition remains at the
forefront.[41]
In
the context of Nigeria’s deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables,
implementing an open access model is crucial to maximizing the benefits of this
extensive project. Given the significant investment required for nationwide
fibre optic deployment, a model that promotes shared use of infrastructure is
the most efficient way to ensure broad and equitable network access. The
Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has emphasized the importance of an
open access regime to accelerate broadband penetration, bridge the digital
divide, and promote economic growth. The implementation of this model in the
90,000 km fibre optic network rollout will allow multiple service providers,
including Mobile Network Operators (MNOs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
and smaller telecom companies, to access high-quality broadband infrastructure
without unnecessary duplication of resources. Many open access arrangements are
a result of public funding of broadband networks.[42]
In these cases, there should be co-operation between the funding authority and
the telecommunication regulator, to guarantee coherence between competition law
and public funding schemes for broadband networks. This would leverage the
expertise of telecommunication regulators and ensure a consistent approach at
all levels.[43]
A
fundamental principle of the open access model is its role in reducing barriers
to market entry. By enabling smaller and emerging telecom operators to lease
capacity on existing fibre optic networks rather than investing in costly
independent networks, the model enhances market competition and service
quality. This approach encourages innovation, as service providers can focus on
delivering superior connectivity solutions and value-added services rather than
being constrained by infrastructure-related challenges. The increased
competition among providers ultimately leads to improved broadband
affordability and greater options for consumers, aligning with the objectives
of Nigeria’s National Broadband Plan (NBP).Furthermore, deploying the 90,000 km
fibre optic network under an open access regime supports infrastructure
efficiency by preventing unnecessary duplication. In traditional telecom
models, dominant players often construct parallel infrastructure, leading to
inefficiencies in resource allocation and environmental degradation. The open
access approach ensures that existing and new infrastructure is utilized
optimally, promoting cost savings and sustainability. It also facilitates
faster network rollout, as service providers can focus on expanding coverage
and service delivery rather than investing in redundant infrastructure
projects.Another key advantage of the open access model in Nigeria’s broadband
expansion is its ability to support connectivity in underserved and rural
areas. Historically, telecom providers have been reluctant to extend fibre
optic networks to remote regions due to high deployment costs and lower profit
margins. However, with an open access framework, multiple providers can share
infrastructure, reducing individual financial risks and making it more feasible
to invest in rural connectivity. The Nigerian government and regulatory bodies
can further enhance this initiative by offering incentives, such as tax reliefs
and subsidies, to encourage participation in shared broadband infrastructure
projects in less commercially viable locations.
Regulatory
oversight by the NCC is essential to ensuring the success of the open access
model in the deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables. Clear guidelines
and frameworks must be established to guarantee fair pricing, transparency, and
non-discriminatory access to network infrastructure. The NCC’s licensing
structure should ensure that no single entity has undue control over the fibre
optic network, preventing anti-competitive practices and fostering an inclusive
telecommunications environment. Strong regulatory enforcement mechanisms will
be necessary to ensure compliance among stakeholders and to prevent market
manipulation by dominant telecom operators.Additionally, the integration of an
open access model with existing policies such as the National Broadband Plan
(NBP) and the Infrastructure Company (InfraCo) framework will help create a cohesive
strategy for Nigeria’s digital transformation. Collaboration between government
agencies, private sector investors, and telecom operators will be key to
overcoming operational and financial challenges associated with large-scale
fibre optic deployment. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) can play a
significant role in financing and managing open access networks, ensuring
long-term sustainability and affordability.
In
a nutshell, the deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables in Nigeria
presents a transformative opportunity to enhance broadband penetration and
digital inclusion. The adoption of an open access model will maximize the
impact of this investment by promoting fair competition, improving service
quality, and ensuring efficient use of telecom infrastructure. Effective
regulatory oversight, strategic incentives, and industry collaboration will be
crucial in achieving a truly open and competitive broadband market that
benefits all stakeholders in Nigeria’s telecom sector.
Despite
its benefits, the Open Access Model faces challenges, including resistance from
incumbent operators who may perceive mandatory sharing as a threat to their
market dominance. Regulatory uncertainty and pricing disputes can also hinder
effective implementation, requiring strong oversight from national
telecommunications authorities.[44]
Additionally, ensuring technical interoperability among different service
providers remains a critical issue, necessitating standardized protocols and
neutral oversight bodies.[45] Countries
with successful open access regimes, such as Sweden and Singapore, have
established clear regulatory frameworks and independent entities to manage
infrastructure sharing, ensuring fair competition and innovation.[46]
Looking
ahead, the Open Access Model will play a crucial role in achieving universal
broadband access and supporting digital transformation agendas worldwide.
Policymakers must balance incentives for private investment with mandates for
equitable access, particularly in developing economies where digital inclusion
remains a priority.[47] As demand
for high-speed connectivity grows, open access networks will be essential in
bridging the digital divide, fostering innovation, and enabling sustainable
telecom growth.[48]
Deployment
in Unprofitable and Underserved Areas:
Finally, unprofitable areas are regions where commercial telecom operators
hesitate to invest due to low revenue potential, while underserved areas lack
adequate broadband coverage (typically below 10 Mbps). The NBP designates these
zones for priority deployment under the InfraCo initiative, supported by
government subsidies.[49] The
Universal Service Provision Fund (USPF) further facilitates connectivity
projects in such locations.[50]
The
deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables in unprofitable and underserved
areas in Nigeria presents unique challenges that must be addressed to ensure
equitable broadband access. Rural and underserved areas suffer from inadequate
broadband infrastructure due to high deployment costs with low revenue
potential.[51] The
financial feasibility of extending fibre optic networks to these regions is
often questioned because of the sparse population density, which makes
traditional telecom investments unviable. Additionally, the lack of supporting
infrastructure, including reliable power supply and road networks, further
complicates broadband expansion efforts. These factors contribute to a
significant digital divide, leaving many communities without access to
essential online services such as e-learning, telemedicine, and e-commerce.[52]
To
bridge this gap, government and private sector interventions are necessary to
ensure sustainable broadband deployment.[53]
Strengthening the Universal Service Provision Fund (USPF) is one of the key
strategies for financing infrastructure projects in underserved regions. By
offering subsidies and financial support to telecom operators, the USPF can
help offset the high costs associated with fibre optic deployment. This
approach has been instrumental in several global broadband expansion
initiatives and can play a crucial role in Nigeria’s connectivity drive.
Public-Private
Partnerships (PPPs) offer another viable solution to the challenge of broadband
expansion in unprofitable areas. Through collaborative investment models, the
government can work with private telecom operators to share risks and pool
resources for network deployment. These partnerships can help create a sustainable
framework where the government provides regulatory support and financial
incentives, while telecom companies leverage their expertise and infrastructure
to extend broadband coverage. Successful PPP models have been implemented in
several countries, demonstrating their effectiveness in overcoming financial
and operational barriers in broadband expansion projects.
Subsidies
and tax incentives can further encourage telecom operators to invest in
underserved areas. By providing financial incentives such as tax breaks,
grants, and low-interest loans, the government can make fibre optic deployment
more attractive for private companies. Incentivizing network rollout in remote
locations ensures that telecom providers can achieve a reasonable return on
investment while expanding broadband access to communities that would otherwise
remain disconnected. Additionally, flexible licensing policies and reduced
regulatory fees can ease the financial burden on operators and stimulate
investments in broadband infrastructure. Beyond traditional fibre optic
deployment, alternative broadband solutions must be explored to complement
connectivity efforts in underserved areas. Satellite and wireless technologies
offer practical solutions where fibre deployment may be cost-prohibitive.
Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, for instance, can provide reliable broadband
coverage in remote areas, ensuring that even the most isolated communities have
access to digital services. Fixed wireless access and TV white space
technologies are also viable options for extending broadband to rural regions
with limited infrastructure. Integrating these alternative technologies with
fibre optic networks can create a comprehensive approach to connectivity
expansion.
International
best practices provide valuable insights into effective broadband deployment
strategies in underserved regions. Countries such as India and Brazil have
successfully implemented government subsidies and co-investment models to
extend broadband coverage to rural areas. India’s BharatNet project, for
example, has leveraged a mix of fibre optic and wireless technologies to
connect remote villages, while Brazil’s National Broadband Plan has used
subsidies to encourage private investment in unprofitable areas. Nigeria can
adopt similar strategies by tailoring global best practices to its unique
socio-economic and geographical landscape. Leveraging lessons from these
successful initiatives can help create a robust and scalable broadband
expansion framework.
The
deployment of 90,000 km of fibre optic cables in underserved areas requires a
multi-faceted approach that combines government intervention, private sector
participation and technological innovation. Addressing the financial and
logistical challenges associated with rural broadband expansion is essential to
achieving nationwide connectivity. By implementing targeted policies, fostering
partnerships, and exploring alternative broadband solutions, Nigeria can bridge
the digital divide and ensure that all citizens, regardless of location, have
access to reliable and affordable internet services.
Recommended
next steps for determining appropriate SPV-PPP framework and financing.
The
analysis in this study emphasized the need for non-duplication of
infrastructure, telecom co-sharing, open access model and deployment of
infrastructure in unprofitable and underserved areas. It also emphasized, transparency and proper
understanding of the benefits and risks of using the SPVs-PPP framework. The
recommendations here aim to outline, in a relatively simple and straightforward
way, concrete steps that the government at all levels can take in concert with
the private sector to make this SPVs-PPP project a reality. Each of the steps
would necessarily involve face-to-face meetings and workshops and should be
tied to a clear and detailed schedule of milestones. Each of these
recommendations draws upon more detailed explanations above.
i.
Make clear that the PPP should be led by the private sector. The government
should emphasize the importance of private sector initiative throughout the PPP
project, including in financing it. It should be made clear that public
financing will only be employed to the extent necessary to reach areas where
private sector interest is not sufficient to provide connectivity without
additional intervention or incentives especially the underserved areas.
ii.
Convene potential stakeholders to determine likely levels of financial support.
Government, operators and international experts should be brought together with
potential sources of financing, including potential multilateral donors,
operators and other contributors, to gauge whether SPVs and PPP
frameworks are likely to attract the necessary levels of financial
support.
iii.
Determine likelihood of involvement of multilateral organizations as expertise
and resources from such organizations will be required. Given the lack of
financial resources and technical capacity on this issue , financial support
and expertise will be required from multilateral organizations and other
international donors to establish a framework for structuring and financing a
SPV-PPP of this scope in the Nigerian Telecom sector. This support could be
provided in phases in order to establish milestones for success and to
facilitate management of funding streams. Initial commitments of support will
need to be gauged as a starting point. Combining these efforts with other
infrastructure buildout, such as road construction in underserved areas, should
be explored. Then, such organizations will have to undergo internal funding and
external procurement processes in order to put such support into place. They
will require a clear commitment from the government through the ICRC to the PPP process before doing so.
iv.
Put expertise in place to drive the process. These experts can be local or
international, local should be preferred to promote local content, where there
are no local capacity, a combination of both, where international experts with
experience with SPV-PPP elsewhere work with local experts with superior
knowledge of the sector. The ultimate goal should be knowledge transfer to and
capacity building of local expertise. Such experts are often funded by
international donors or multi-lateral organizations.
v.
Identify where in the government PPP expertise should be placed. Governments
commonly develop dedicated PPP units to work potentially across multiple and
varied PPP projects, providing procurement, planning and technical support, as
well as monitoring project performance and generally promoting PPP across
sectors. In the Nigerian context, such SPV-PPP oversight authority and
enforcement powers could best be placed with a cross governmental ministry with
the power of the purse, i.e the Ministry of Finance, Budget and National
Planning could also be tasked with authority.
vi.
Develop a business and financial plan. The Local or the combination of Local
and international experts should work with the government authority charged
with this SPV-PPP project to develop a plan outlining investment needs,
milestones and risks, as well as costs and benefits to the sector, consumers
and the national economy. Participation by stakeholders should be defined. A
determination should be made of which operators (existing and/or new) should be
involved.
vii.
By Implementing these recommendations, Nigeria can achieve an efficient and
cost-effective broadband expansion, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of
location, have access to reliable and affordable internet services.
[1]
Justice
Okamgba, FG woos investors for
90,000km fibre-optic project<https://punchng.com> accessed 28 March 2025
[2]Munachi Chikodili Ugwu and
Others, The Role Of Public-Private Partnerships In Building Clean Energy
Infrastructure In The United States and Nigeria, International Journal Of
Management & Entrepreneurship Research (2024)6 (4)
[3] InfraCo Licensing
Framework (2020) – NCC
[4] GSMA. (2020). The State of
Mobile Internet Connectivity Report.
[5] ITU. (2021). Guidelines on
National Broadband Policies.
[6] World Bank. (2022).
Connecting the Unconnected: Strategies for Rural Connectivity.
[7] OECD. (2020).
Public-Private Partnerships in Telecommunications.
[8] Ibid (n.1)
[9] Mark D. J. Williams,
Advancing the Development of Backbone Networks in Sub-Saharan Africa https://thedocs.worldbank.org/ accessed 28 March 2028
[10] Ericsson. (2021). 5G
Infrastructure Sharing: Opportunities and Challenges.
[11] GSMA. (2023).
Infrastructure Sharing for Sustainable Connectivity.
[12] National Broadband Plan
(NBP) 2020-2025 – Federal Ministry of Communications & Digital Economy page
35.
[13] Infrastructure Sharing
Regulations (2019) – Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)
[14] Falch, M., & Henten,
A. (2018). Telecommunications Regulation: Infrastructure and Services.
Routledge.
[15] Nigerian Communications
Commission (NCC). (2019). Infrastructure Sharing Framework.
[16] Jose Marino Garcia and Tim
Kelly, The Economics and Policy Implications of Infrastructure Sharing and
Mutualisation in Africa, Background Paper (World Development Report: Digital
Dividends), 2016, World Bank Group, available at (“WDR Background Paper, 2016”)
[17] Ayant Raghu Ram, When
Sharing Isn’t Always Caring: Understanding Telecom Infrastructure Sharing In
The Multilateral Context, Centre For Wto Studies Indian Institute Of Foreign
Trade, New Delhi
[18] Ibid (n.5)
[19] Ibid
[20] Ibid
[21] Consultation Paper on ICT
Infrastructure Sharing, 2009, Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid
[24] Wilson, Gibbons G.,
"From monopoly to competition: How the three rules shaped the
telecommunications industry," Deloitte study
[25] Consultation
Paper on ICT Infrastructure Sharing, 2009, Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority
[26] J. Kim, Y.
Kim, N. Gaston, R. Lestage, and F. D., "Access Regulation and
infrastructure investment in the mobile telecommunications industry,"
Telecommunications policy, vol. 25, pp. 907-919, 2011.
[27] Arndt Husar,
Yoonee Jeong, and John Garrit, Cross-Sector Infrastructure Co-Deployment
Closing Digital Connectivity Gaps Through Collaboration and Sharing.
[28]
Cynthia Egboboh ,
Power infrastructure vandalism up across Nigeria, threatens
sector<htttps://businessday.ng> accessed 28 march 2025
[29] S.P.A Ajibade and
Co, The Federal Government has
officially signed the designation and protection of critical National
Information Infrastructure Order 2024 <https://www.mondaq.com> accessed
28 March 2025
[30] The Electricity Hub, Nigeria’s
Power Grid at a Crossroads: The Transmission Dilemma< https://theelectricityhub.com> accessed 28 March 2025
[31] National Broadband Plan
(NBP) 2020-2025 – Federal Ministry of Communications & Digital Economy page
28.
[32] Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). (2020). Promoting Broadband Competition Through Open Access
Networks.
[33] ITU. (2022). Case Studies
on Successful Open Access Implementation.
[34]
GSMA. (2022). Open Access Networks: Lessons from Global Markets.
[35]
OECD. (2019). Broadband Policies for Open Access Networks.
[36] World Bank. (2020).
Expanding Broadband Access Through Open Networks.
[37] Ericsson. (2021). 5G and
Open Access: Opportunities for Market Growth.
[38] P. J. Sims,
"Comments for the Definition of an Open Access Architecture," U.S.
Department of Commerce, 2009.
[39] Wilson,
Gibbons G., "From monopoly to competition: How the three rules shaped the
telecommunications industry," Deloitte study
[40] Bauer, J.M. (2010),
“Regulation, public policy, and investment in communications infrastructure”,
Quello Center, Working Paper.
[41] Lehr W., Sirbu M. and
Gillett S. (2004), “Broadband Open Access: Lessons from Municipal Network Case
Studies,” Telecommunications Policy Research Conference - T PRC 2004,
Alexandria.
[42] OECD (2013), “Broadband
Networks and Open Access”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 218, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
[43] Ibid
[44] Falch, M., & Henten,
A. (2018). Telecommunications Regulation: Infrastructure and Services.
Routledge.
[45] GSMA. (2023). Regulatory
Strategies for Open Access Infrastructure.
[46] ITU. (2022). Case Studies
on Successful Open Access Implementation.
[47]
World Bank. (2023). Digital Inclusion and Open Access Strategies.
[48]
OECD. (2023). Digital Economy Outlook: Infrastructure Sharing Trends.
[49] National Broadband Plan
(NBP) 2020-2025 – Federal Ministry of Communications & Digital Economy page
30.
[50] NCC, USPF Guidelines
[51] Marco Araújo,
Infrastructure deployment in unprofitable areas, A techno-economic model for
multiple criteria decision analysis under the European Union telecommunications
regulatory framework
[52] EU-Commission, "EU
Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid
deployment of broadband networks," Official Journal of the European Union,
2013.
[53] Benedicta Ehimuan and
others, Digital inclusion initiatives: Bridging the connectivity gap in Africa
and the USA – A review , International
Journal of Science and Research Archive, 2024, 11(01), 488–501
No comments:
Post a Comment