No fibre, no future

The recent controversy surrounding the proposed amendments to the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act, 1996, generated alarming headlines. Critics claimed that Sections 27A and 27B would allow telecom operators to “seize private property”, “override housing societies”, and “impose telecom towers without consent”. Such characterisations may make good headlines, but they are poor public policy.

The real issue is far more fundamental. Pakistan is attempting to build a digital economy using a telecom law enacted before Google existed, before smartphones were invented and before the internet became the backbone of economic activity.

The amendments deserve support because they seek to solve perhaps the single biggest challenge confronting Pakistan’s digital future – not spectrum, not taxes, but infrastructure.

Pakistan today has over 207 million mobile and fixed subscriptions and more than 162 million broadband users. Yet only about 14%-19% of Pakistan’s approximately 58,000 telecom towers are connected to fibre. More than 95% of broadband users rely primarily on mobile networks rather than fixed broadband infrastructure. This puts Pakistan far behind countries preparing for the Artificial Intelligence (AI) economy.

The Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication (MoITT) aims to increase tower fibrilisation from around 16% to 80% by 2029 under the Digital Economy Enhancement Project. Achieving this objective requires billions of rupees in investment and, more importantly, the removal of regulatory bottlenecks.

Globally, 70%-80% of the cost of fibre deployment is associated with civil works and rights-of-way. Delays in permissions often cost more than the fibre itself. This is precisely what Sections 27A and 27B seek to address.

Pakistan is not the first country to recognise that rights-of-way are essential for digital infrastructure. India replaced the 138-year-old Indian Telegraph Act with the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The law and subsequent Right of Way Rules, 2024 introduced uniform procedures and time-bound approvals for telecom infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia has treated digital infrastructure as a national priority under Vision 2030. The EU’s Gigabit Infrastructure Act requires member states to simplify permits and coordinate civil works. Australia, Singapore and the UK all provide statutory rights for telecommunications operators to access public infrastructure subject to procedures and safeguards.

No country aspiring to become a digital economy treats telecom infrastructure as a luxury.

Perhaps the strongest criticism against Sections 27A and 27B is that they violate Articles 23 and 24 of the constitution of Pakistan. This criticism appears exaggerated.

The MoITT has repeatedly clarified that the proposed amendments do not authorise compulsory acquisition or occupation of private property. MoITT officials and the minister for IT and telecom informed the Senate Standing Committee that private ownership rights remain protected and that infrastructure deployment will remain subject to legal procedures, mutual arrangements, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Indeed, had the government intended to effect a compulsory acquisition, it would have required amendments to other laws governing land acquisition and compensation.

The bill merely creates a framework for access and right-of-way. These concepts are neither novel nor unconstitutional. Electricity distribution companies, gas utilities, railways, highways and water authorities all operate under similar principles. Telecommunications cannot be treated differently.

Opponents focus on private inconvenience but overlook public benefits. Internet access today is no longer a luxury. Schools, banks, hospitals, and businesses depend on it. AI, cloud computing, and data centres cannot function without fibre.

A single housing society or municipal authority should not possess veto power over connectivity for thousands of citizens. The law therefore seeks to balance individual rights with the larger public interest, a principle recognised in every modern constitutional democracy.

Another criticism concerns the deemed-approval mechanism, whereby non-response to notices may amount to implied consent. Critics portray this as extraordinary. It is not.

Deemed approvals are common throughout modern regulatory systems. Environmental permits, building approvals and utility connections frequently incorporate similar mechanisms to prevent endless delays and bureaucratic paralysis.

The principle behind deemed approval is straightforward: Silence should not become a permanent veto. Without such provisions, a single non-responsive authority or housing society can indefinitely block projects serving thousands of consumers.

The government itself has also indicated its willingness to improve the language regarding above-ground installations if any ambiguity exists. Clarification is sensible; abandoning reform is not.

Critics have highlighted penalties of up to Rs50 million as excessive. However, penalties exist because infrastructure projects are frequently obstructed by arbitrary refusals and demands unrelated to public safety. Without deterrence, rights become meaningless. Similar penalties exist under competition laws, securities laws, and utility legislation. The existence of penalties does not imply abuse. Their purpose is to discourage unreasonable obstruction and encourage compliance.

One of the least discussed but most important aspects of the reforms concerns private housing societies. Across Pakistan, telecom operators routinely face arbitrary restrictions imposed by private entities that exercise powers akin to governments but without accountability.

Residents pay maintenance charges and taxes, yet poor connectivity persists because permissions are delayed or denied. Digital exclusion should not become the price of gated living. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that private communities do not become barriers to national connectivity objectives.

No law is perfect. Parliament can and should refine Sections 27A and 27B. More explicit language regarding notice requirements, compensation, appeal rights, and dispute resolution may strengthen public confidence. But those improvements should not derail reforms whose necessity is beyond dispute.

The greater risk lies not in modernising the law, but in preserving a 30-year-old framework drafted for a voice-centric world. The roads and railways transformed industrial economies, electricity transformed manufacturing, fibre networks will transform digital economies.

Pakistan’s future competitiveness in AI, cloud computing, fintech, and digital services will depend not on slogans but on infrastructure. And infrastructure requires laws fit for the twenty-first century.

Sections 27A and 27B should therefore be viewed not as instruments of coercion, but as enablers of national connectivity and economic growth. Pakistan’s telecom law must enter the fibre age.

The writer is an ICT regulatory expert with over 20 years of experience. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.

Originally published in The News