The recent controversy surrounding the proposed amendments to the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 made alarming headlines. Critics argued that sections 27A and 27B would allow telecoms operators to “seize private property”, “override housing associations” and “impose on telecoms towers without consent”. Such characterizations may make good headlines, but they are bad public policy.
The real question is far more fundamental. Pakistan is trying to build a digital economy using a telecom law passed before Google existed, before smartphones were invented and before the Internet became the backbone of economic activity.
The changes deserve support because they seek to address perhaps the single biggest challenge facing Pakistan’s digital future – not spectrum, not taxes, but infrastructure.
Pakistan today has over 207 million mobile and landline subscriptions and more than 162 million broadband users. Yet only about 14%-19% of Pakistan’s roughly 58,000 telecommunications towers are connected to fiber. 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 Telecommunications (MoITT) aims to increase tower fibrillation from around 16% to 80% by 2029 under the Digital Economy Enhancement Project. Achieving this goal requires billions of rupees in investment and, more importantly, removing regulatory bottlenecks.
Globally, 70%-80% of the costs of fiber installation are associated with civil works and rights of way. Delays in permits often cost more than the fiber itself. It is precisely this that sections 27A and 27B seek to address.
Pakistan is not the first country to recognize that right-of-way is critical to digital infrastructure. India replaced the 138-year-old Indian Telegraph Act with the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The Act and the subsequent Right of Way Rules, 2024 introduced uniform procedures and time-bound approvals for telecommunications infrastructure.
Saudi Arabia has made digital infrastructure a national priority under Vision 2030. The EU’s Gigabit Infrastructure Act requires member states to simplify permits and coordinate construction work. Australia, Singapore and the UK all provide statutory rights for telecommunications operators to access public infrastructure subject to procedures and safeguards.
No country that wants to become a digital economy treats telecommunications infrastructure as a luxury.
Perhaps the strongest criticism of Sections 27A and 27B is that they violate Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan. This criticism seems exaggerated.
The MoITT has repeatedly clarified that the proposed changes do not allow for the compulsory acquisition or occupation of private property. MoITT officials and the Minister of IT and Telecommunications informed the Senate Standing Committee that private ownership rights remain protected and infrastructure rollout remains subject to legal procedures, reciprocal arrangements and dispute resolution mechanisms. If the government had intended to carry out a compulsory acquisition, it would have required changes to other laws governing land acquisition and compensation.
The bill simply creates a framework for access and right-of-way. These concepts are neither new 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 nuisances 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 centers cannot function without fiber.
A single housing company or municipality should not have the right to veto connection options for thousands of citizens. The law therefore seeks to balance individual rights with the larger public interest, a principle recognized in any modern constitutional democracy.
Another criticism relates to the deemed consent mechanism whereby failure to respond to messages can constitute implied consent. Critics portray this as extraordinary. It isn’t.
Deemed approvals are common in modern regulatory systems. Environmental permits, building approvals and utility connections often contain 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 unresponsive 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 there is any ambiguity. Clarification makes sense; abandoning reform is not.
Critics have highlighted fines of up to Rs 50 million as excessive. Penalties do exist, however, because infrastructure projects are often blocked by arbitrary rejections and requirements unrelated to public safety. Without deterrence, rights become meaningless. Similar sanctions exist under competition law, securities law and supply law. The existence of sanctions 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 the private housing companies. Across Pakistan, telecom operators routinely face arbitrary restrictions imposed by private entities that exercise powers similar to governments but without accountability.
Residents pay maintenance charges and taxes, but poor connectivity continues because permits are delayed or denied. Digital exclusion should not become the price of a closed life. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that private communities do not become barriers to national connectivity goals.
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 can strengthen public confidence. But these improvements should not derail reforms whose necessity is indisputable.
The greater risk lies not in modernizing the law, but in preserving a 30-year-old framework designed for a vote-centric world. The roads and railways transformed industrial economies, electricity transformed manufacturing, fiber networks will transform digital economies.
Pakistan’s future competitiveness in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, fintech and digital services will not depend on slogans but on infrastructure. And infrastructure requires laws fit for the twenty-first century.
Sections 27A and 27B should therefore not be seen as instruments of coercion, but as means of national connection and economic growth. Pakistan’s telecom law must enter the fiber age.
The author is an ICT regulatory expert with over 20 years of experience. He can be found at: [email protected]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Pakinomist.tv’s editorial policy.
Originally published in The News
