The recent controversy surrounding the proposed amendments to the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) 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”. These characterizations may make for good headlines, but they are bad public policy.
The real issue is much more fundamental. Pakistan is trying to build a digital economy using a telecommunications 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 biggest challenge facing Pakistan’s digital future: not spectrum, not taxes, but infrastructure.
Pakistan today has more than 207 million fixed and mobile subscriptions and more than 162 million broadband users. However, only 14% to 19% of Pakistan’s approximately 58,000 telecom 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 gearing up 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 investments and, more importantly, the removal of regulatory hurdles.
Globally, between 70% and 80% of the cost of fiber deployment is associated with civil works and rights of way. Permitting delays often cost more than the fiber itself. This is precisely what Sections 27A and 27B seek to address.
Pakistan is not the first country to recognize that rights of way are essential for digital infrastructure. India replaced the 138-year-old Indian Telegraph Act with the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The act 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 Gigabit Infrastructure Law requires member states to simplify permitting and coordinate civil works. Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom grant legal rights to telecommunications operators to access public infrastructure subject to procedures and safeguards.
No country aspiring to become a digital economy treats telecommunications 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 seems exaggerated.
The MoITT has repeatedly clarified that the proposed amendments do not authorize the compulsory acquisition or occupation of private property. MoITT officials and the IT and Telecom Minister informed the Senate Standing Committee that private property rights remain protected and infrastructure deployment will remain subject to legal procedures, mutual agreements and dispute resolution mechanisms. In fact, if the government had intended to effect a compulsory acquisition, it would have required amendments 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 companies, railways, highways and water authorities operate under similar principles. Telecommunications cannot be treated differently.
Opponents focus on private inconveniences but ignore public benefits. Internet access today is no longer a luxury. Schools, banks, hospitals and businesses depend on it. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing and data centers cannot function without fiber.
A single housing society or a municipal authority should not have veto power over the connectivity of thousands of citizens. The law therefore seeks to balance individual rights with the broader public interest, a principle recognized in every modern constitutional democracy.
Another criticism concerns the deemed approval mechanism, under which failure to respond to notifications may amount to implied consent. Critics describe this as something extraordinary. It is not.
Deemed approvals are common in all modern regulatory systems. Environmental permits, construction approvals, and utility connections often incorporate similar mechanisms to avoid endless delays and bureaucratic paralysis.
The principle behind considered approval is simple: silence should not become a permanent veto. Without such provisions, a single unresponsive housing authority or society can indefinitely block projects serving thousands of consumers.
The government itself has also indicated its willingness to improve language regarding above-ground facilities if there is any ambiguity. The clarification is sensible; abandoning the reform is not.
Critics have said that penalties of up to Rs 50 million are excessive. However, sanctions exist because infrastructure projects are frequently hindered by arbitrary denials and demands unrelated to public safety. Without deterrence, rights become meaningless. Similar sanctions exist under competition laws, securities laws and public utility laws. The existence of sanctions does not imply abuse. Its purpose is to discourage unreasonable obstruction and encourage compliance.
One of the least discussed but most important aspects of the reforms has to do with private housing societies. Across Pakistan, telecom operators routinely face arbitrary restrictions imposed by private entities that exercise powers similar to governments but without accountability.
Residents pay taxes and maintenance fees, but poor connectivity persists 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 objectives.
No law is perfect. Parliament can and should refine sections 27A and 27B. More explicit language on notification requirements, compensation, appeal rights, and dispute resolution can strengthen public confidence. But these improvements should not derail reforms whose need is beyond doubt.
The biggest risk lies not in modernizing the law, but in preserving a 30-year-old framework written for a voice-centric world. Roads and railways transformed industrial economies, electricity transformed manufacturing, fiber networks will transform digital economies.
Pakistan’s future competitiveness in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, financial technology and digital services will depend not on slogans but on infrastructure. And infrastructure requires laws fit for the 21st century.
Sections 27A and 27B should therefore not be seen as instruments of coercion, but as facilitators of national connectivity and economic growth. Pakistan’s telecom law must enter the fiber era.
The author is an ICT regulatory expert with more than 20 years of experience. He can be contacted at: [email protected]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of PakGazette.tv.
Originally published in The News
