Abuja FileCover StoryEconomyICTInside LagosNewsTelecommunication

Telco’s Tariff Increase and NCC’s Patriotism

4 Mins read

Since 2013, telecom operators have grappled with escalating costs without corresponding adjustments to the tariff rates they offered. Without tariff adjustments, operators risk being unable to sustain their operations, leading to service degradation and potential job losses within the industry. This would increase the rate of unemployment in the country, contributing to the hardship the government has been fighting hard to eradicate.

By Toby Prince

In the heart of Nigeria’s digital economy, a story of patriotism and resilience unfolds. The telecommunications sector, a driving force behind the country’s growth, has been facing unprecedented challenges. Despite its significant contributions to Nigeria’s social and economic development, the sector has been struggling to keep up with the rising costs of operations.

For nearly a decade, telecom tariffs in Nigeria remained unchanged, while the demand for data and voice services skyrocketed. The cost of operations, however, surged due to rising energy costs, inflation, currency devaluation, and increased costs of importing telecom equipment. These mounting expenses threatened the very foundation of the sector, making it difficult for operators to maintain infrastructure and deliver high-quality services.

In the face of these challenges, telecom operators requested tariff adjustments to reflect the current cost of delivering services. The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) carefully considered these proposals, balancing the needs of operators with the interests of consumers. Instead of approving the suggested 100% rate increase, the NCC authorized a maximum adjustment of up to 50% within the current tariff bands.

The NCC plays a vital role in regulating the telecommunications industry in Nigeria, and its actions are guided by the Nigerian Communications Act of 2003. This act empowers the body to regulate and approve tariff rates and charges by telecom operators, ensuring a balance between consumer protection and industry sustainability.

The NCC’s decision to approve tariff adjustments was not taken lightly. It was based on extensive consultations with stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. The goal was to strike a balance between the financial realities of telecom operators and the economic pressures faced by Nigerian households and businesses. The approved tariff adjustments were capped at 50%, significantly lower than the 100% increase requested by operators. This decision showcases the NCC’s commitment to creating a telecommunications environment that works for everyone.

To further protect consumers, the NCC mandated telecom operators to implement the approved adjustments transparently and fairly. Meanwhile, operators were also required to educate and inform the public about the new rates, ensuring customers are fully aware of any changes to their billing structures. Additionally, the NCC’s updated Quality of Service Regulations empower it to sanction operators who fail to meet their service obligations.

Nigerians need to understand that the recent tariff adjustments in the telecommunications sector are a necessary step towards ensuring the long-term sustainability of the industry. These adjustments will enable operators to invest in infrastructure upgrades and innovation, ultimately providing opportunities for local businesses to thrive.

A robust telecommunications sector is crucial for achieving Nigeria’s digital economy goals, including e-commerce growth, broadband penetration, and digital inclusion. The tariff adjustments will strengthen operators’ contributions to these objectives by providing connectivity to underserved and rural areas, driving innovation, creating jobs, and boosting economic productivity.

Since 2013, telecom operators have grappled with escalating costs without corresponding adjustments to the tariff rates they offered. Without tariff adjustments, operators risk being unable to sustain their operations, leading to service degradation and potential job losses within the industry. This would increase the rate of unemployment in the country, contributing to the hardship the government has been fighting hard to eradicate.

The telecommunications sector is capital-intensive, requiring continuous investment in infrastructure to meet growing demand and improve service quality. The approved tariff adjustments will provide operators with the financial resources needed to invest in network expansion, upgrade existing infrastructure, and enhance customer service. This will ultimately benefit consumers by delivering better connectivity, reduced downtime, and wider network coverage.

It’s worth noting that the Nigerian Communications Commission’s (NCC) approval of tariff adjustments aligns with international best practices, ensuring Nigeria stays competitive in the global telecommunications landscape. By maintaining tariffs within the bands outlined in the 2013 NCC Cost Study, the Commission has ensured that the adjustments are both fair and evidence-based.

Furthermore, the NCC’s modest tariff adjustment was influenced by the financial strains that many businesses and households are experiencing. In the context of the broader economy, the long-term benefits of the slight increase in consumer bills far outweigh the immediate costs. Benefits such as expanded coverage, improved network quality, and enhanced customer service will provide greater value to consumers, further ensuring they receive a greater telecommunications experience.

In other to mitigate the impact on vulnerable consumers, the NCC has mandated that operators simplify their tariff structures, and offer affordable plans that will be suitable to different income levels. Additionally, the Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the adjustments to ensure compliance with its guidelines and protect consumers from exploitation. This action validates the Commission’s goal of ensuring that Nigeria remains at the forefront of digital innovation and connectivity in Africa.

As a regulator, it is obvious that the NCC is not only protecting consumers, but also supporting operators, indigenous vendors, and suppliers who form the pillar of the telecom industry. It is worthy of note to state that the adjustments have no relation to the ongoing tax reform conversation. This holistic approach ensures that the benefits of a thriving telecommunications sector are felt across all segments of society.

The tariff adjustments approved by the NCC are a necessary step toward addressing the financial and operational challenges faced by telecom operators. Far from being complicit in any alleged exploitation, the NCC has demonstrated commendable patriotism and a deep commitment to balancing consumer protection with industry sustainability. The NCC’s actions in approving the tariff adjustments reflect patriotism and national progress at its finest.

By enabling operators to invest in infrastructure, improve service quality, and support indigenous businesses, the NCC is laying the foundation for a more robust and inclusive telecommunications sector that can measure up with its international counterparts all across the globe. The adjustments are not merely a response to current market conditions but a forward-looking strategy that will ensure Nigeria’s telecommunications industry remains a vital driver of economic growth and digital transformation.

As Nigerians, it is very important to view these adjustments as a patriotic move by the NCC to secure the future of connectivity and development in the country. The Commission’s action embodies transparency and accountability, and it serves as a reminder that effective regulation is not about appeasing one stakeholder group over another, but about creating an environment that works for everyone. Through its efforts, the NCC is proving that a stronger, more sustainable telecommunications sector is not just a possibility but a reality within reach in no.

Prince writes from Abuja

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com