RoW Fees Return—and Nigeria’s Broadband Plan Is at Risk

The hidden cost of state-level charges

RoW fees are not the only cost operators face. Telecom companies also pay for equipment, tower leases, energy, security, maintenance, foreign exchange exposure, vandalism repairs, taxes and regulatory levies. In Nigeria, where diesel costs and currency pressures already weigh heavily on networks, fresh state charges add another layer of uncertainty.

Consider a fibre company planning to connect towns across a state. The business case depends on how many customers it can eventually serve: homes, base stations, schools, hospitals, banks, businesses and public agencies. If the state imposes a high per-metre or per-kilometre RoW fee, the upfront cost can become so large that the operator prioritises richer urban corridors and ignores lower-income or rural areas.

That is how digital inequality gets built into the map.

Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt and parts of Ogun may continue to attract investment because demand is dense and customers can pay. But less commercially attractive areas — where better internet could have the biggest social impact — are pushed to the back of the queue. The irony is sharp: states that want tech jobs, e-government, digital education and smarter tax collection may be pricing out the infrastructure needed to make those goals real.

There is also the problem of multiple payments. Operators often complain that beyond official RoW charges, projects can be slowed by local government demands, community levies, road agency permits, security approvals and informal disruptions. Even when a state government announces a reduced fee, implementation can break down across agencies.

For telecom investors, uncertainty is almost as damaging as high cost. If charges can change suddenly, approvals drag for months, or contractors are stopped mid-project, network planning becomes more expensive and riskier.

How consumers could pay the price

The public may not see a line item called “right-of-way fee” on a data bill. But infrastructure costs shape the economics of data pricing.

When operators spend more to deploy and maintain networks, they have fewer options. They may slow down capital expenditure, focus on high-value customers, reduce expansion into underserved areas, or eventually push for higher tariffs. Even where prices do not rise immediately, quality may suffer.

This is especially sensitive in Nigeria because internet access has become essential infrastructure. Students need data for learning. Small businesses need it for payments, advertising and logistics. Freelancers rely on it to earn income. Farmers use digital tools for market information. Families use messaging apps because voice calls can be expensive. Government agencies increasingly expect citizens to interact online.

A more expensive rollout environment does not just inconvenience Netflix users. It affects productivity and opportunity.

There is also a 5G dimension. Nigeria’s 5G future will require much denser fibre connectivity than earlier mobile generations. High-speed radio access is only one part of the network. To deliver low latency and large capacity, operators need fibre to more towers, more enterprise sites and more neighbourhood nodes. If RoW becomes costly or chaotic, 5G deployment risks becoming a premium urban service rather than a broad productivity platform.

The digital economy target at stake

Nigeria has repeatedly positioned the digital economy as a growth engine. That ambition runs through broadband policy, startup policy, fintech growth, digital identity systems and the push to expand public services online.

But digital economy targets are only as strong as the infrastructure beneath them. A country cannot regulate its way into a tech boom if networks are slow, expensive and unevenly distributed.

The World Bank has consistently linked affordable broadband to economic growth, inclusion and competitiveness. For Nigeria, the stakes are particularly high because the country has a young population, a large informal economy and one of Africa’s most active startup ecosystems. Better broadband can widen access to jobs, markets and services. Poor broadband does the opposite: it concentrates opportunity in a few connected cities.

This is why RoW should not be treated as a narrow negotiation between telcos and state revenue boards. It is a national development issue.

States do need revenue. But charging heavily for fibre corridors is short-term thinking. The stronger play is to reduce friction, attract network investment, digitise the state economy and then collect broader taxes from the businesses and jobs that reliable connectivity helps create.

Ekiti and a few other states have previously been praised for reducing or waiving RoW fees to encourage broadband investment. That model points to a better path: states competing to become easier places to connect, not harder ones.

What should happen next

Nigeria does not need another policy document that says broadband is important. It needs enforceable alignment across federal, state and local authorities.

First, RoW charges should be transparent, predictable and harmonised. Operators should know the cost before they design networks, not discover new charges halfway through deployment.

Second, approvals should be time-bound and digitised. A single online permit system at state level would reduce delays, corruption risks and agency overlap.

Third, telecom infrastructure should be treated as critical national infrastructure in practice, not just in speeches. Fibre cuts, arbitrary stoppages and duplicated levies should attract consequences.

Finally, states should publish broadband investment scorecards: kilometres of fibre approved, permits issued, average approval time, RoW rate and connected public institutions. What gets measured becomes harder to hide.

Conclusion

The fight over right-of-way fees is really a fight over Nigeria’s internet future.

If states see fibre as a cash cow, broadband expansion will slow and consumers will eventually absorb the cost through poorer service, higher prices or both. If they see it as foundational infrastructure, Nigeria has a better chance of meeting its connectivity goals and building a digital economy that reaches beyond a few major cities.

The cables in the ground may be invisible. The consequences of making them harder to deploy will not be.

Sources

• The Guardian Nigeria — Technology and telecoms coverage
• Nigerian National Broadband Plan 2020–2025
• Nigerian Communications Commission — Industry Statistics
• World Bank — Nigeria Digital Economy Diagnostic Report