Syed Wajid
THE Senate IT Committee has deferred the Telecom Reorganization Amendment Bill 2026. This delay stems from concerns that the government’s proposed language allows unchecked deployment of telecom infrastructure—like fiber cables and towers—on private land, while penalizing landowners up to Rs. 50 million for refusing Right of Way (RoW). Resolving this requires analyzing the three key stakeholders: the State, the Operators and the Public.
Under its “Digital Pakistan” vision, the Ministry of IT and Telecommunication (MoITT) and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) aim to expand fixed and mobile broadband to build a modern, tech-driven knowledge economy. Expected benefits include reducing the digital divide, women’s empowerment, employment opportunities, support for freelancers, improved access to public services, financial inclusion and an expanded tax base. To achieve this, the government has introduced the Digital Nation Act, formed the Pakistan Digital Authority and auctioned the 5G spectrum.
However, success depends heavily on fiber infrastructure. The ministry aims to increase cell site fiberization from 16% to 60% (ultimately 80%) via the World Bank-funded Digital Economy Enhancement Project (DEEP). It also plans to expand fiber reach from 3 million to 10 million home passes. The proposed bill targets the primary bottleneck to this rollout: the Right of Way.
Operators are for-profit organizations driven by commercial feasibility. In rural, non-viable areas, they rely on Universal Service Fund (USF) subsidies. Their goal is straightforward: expand their user base and increase profitability through fiber-powered, high-speed networks. For fixed broadband operators, the main challenge is the high cost of laying fiber, largely due to expensive RoW permissions demanded by municipal authorities, cantonments and private housing societies like DHA. Under PTA’s Class Value Added Services (CVAS) licenses, smaller district-level operators also depend on fiber hubs to deliver local wireless connectivity. Fiber, dependent on RoW, remains the lifeline for both large as well as small operators and access to high-speed internet for the public.
The public requires uninterrupted, high-quality internet at fair prices, alongside data security. Currently, Pakistan ranks 6th globally for the lowest mobile data costs, averaging $0.10 to $0.12 per GB. Conversely, due to limited fiber infrastructure, Pakistan is among the top 10 most expensive countries for fixed broadband, averaging $0.53 per Mbps. The primary roadblock to lowering these fixed costs remains the RoW.
While the ministry has successfully addressed RoW issues with government entities and housing societies, the primary area requiring alignment lies with private landowners. The bill states that private RoW cannot be refused and must be mutually agreed upon. However, under Section 27B, it penalizes any owner or tenant who “obstructs or delays” access with a fine of up to Rs. 50 million. Furthermore, once permission is granted, owners cannot unilaterally alter terms or revoke access.
For telecom towers, history shows private owners cooperate willingly because it creates a steady revenue stream. Operators also have flexible location alternatives. The true bottleneck for towers is not landowners, but the authorities issuing permissions and No Objection Certificates (NoCs). Because PTA encourages tower sharing and specialized tower companies (TowerCos), tower deployment rarely causes RoW conflicts, which primarily involve cable laying. In fact, using RoW for tower deployment does not align with standard industry practice.
The main area of concern remains the RoW for laying fiber across private property. The majority of fiber lines run along roads and highways, with only rare exceptions requiring operators to lay cables inside private boundaries. For roadside deployments, landowners often resist due to the severe inconvenience caused by operators and their frequent failure to repair damaged ramps and property in a timely manner. When fiber must cross inside private boundaries, it is either due to absolute necessity or because alternative routes are longer and more expensive for the operator.
To resolve the first issue, operators must be legally bound to restore damaged property within a strict, agreed timeline, minimizing public inconvenience. Operators should also face heavy penalties for non-compliance. In cases where fiber must cut through private land, operators must be required to legally prove that no alternative route exists and that crossing private property is the sole viable option. Only when absolute necessity is proven should mandatory access and penalties apply. Once necessity is established for a specific route, that operator should also be legally compelled to share their duct or fiber if another operator needs to use the same pathway. This measure will protect private landowners from exploitation and prevent operators from leveraging the law to route fiber through private lands simply to cut their own costs.
—The writer is a telecom and IT expert with more than 30 years of experience.
