Nigeria has the internet bandwidth. Getting it inland is the problem

Nigeria sits at the centre of West Africa’s international connectivity, with eight high-capacity submarine cables landing on its shores. Systems such as WACS, MainOne, Glo-1, Africa Coast to Europe, SAT-3/WASC, NCSCS, Google’s Equiano and Meta-backed 2Africa together provide an estimated combined capacity of more than 360 terabits per second, dramatically expanding Nigeria’s access to global bandwidth and reducing the cost of bringing data into the country. 

Yet a striking paradox remains: distributing that capacity within Nigeria—from coastal landing points to homes, businesses and communities inland—is still far more expensive, complex and unpredictable. This gap between abundant international capacity and costly domestic distribution has become one of the most enduring barriers to affordable broadband and inclusive digital growth.

Understanding why terrestrial fibre costs more than submarine cables requires looking beyond engineering and into governance, policy, financing and market structure. It also requires confronting the uncomfortable reality that Nigeria has solved the international connectivity problem faster than it has solved the domestic one.

Why submarine cable economics work

Large open-access submarine cable systems such as 2Africa and Equiano are expensive projects in absolute terms, but relatively efficient when measured per kilometre. The West Africa Cable System, built at a cost of roughly $650 million (₦943 billion) over about 14,500 to 15,000 kilometres, worked out to roughly $40,000 (₦58 million) to $45,000 (₦65 million) per kilometre at the time of construction. Meta’s 2Africa cable, widely reported to cost just under $1 billion across around 45,000 kilometres, brought that average closer to $20,000 (₦29.0 million) to $25,000 (₦36.3 million) per kilometre.

These figures are not accidental. Submarine cables are delivered as single, large-scale engineering projects using standardised technology and long-established construction practices. Once routes, landing points and system specifications are agreed, most of the major costs are locked in through contracts with a small group of specialised vendors. This makes submarine projects relatively predictable, even when they span multiple countries and oceans.

Equally crucial is the consortium and open-access approach that underpins many modern submarine cable systems. As Meta’s Head of Public Policy for Anglophone West Africa, Sade Dada, noted, the 2Africa cable was intentionally structured to distribute cost and risk across multiple operators while granting broader access to other players. This model reduces duplication, fosters competition, and ensures that international capacity is not monopolised by a single infrastructure owner.

“One of the key challenges we face is that we’ve been doing things the same way for too long,” Dada said at the Minister, Regulator & Telecom Executives Forum 2025 in Abuja, hosted by the Association of Telecommunication Operators of Nigeria (ATCON) on November 28, 2025. “Innovative models exist that can significantly lower costs, but realising their potential requires a willingness to think differently. By doing so, we can reduce costs not only for operators, but also for infrastructure providers and other participants across the ecosystem.”

Dada also highlighted the critical role of Nigeria’s regulator, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), in supporting the initiative. Rather than dismissing the unfamiliar open-access model, the NCC engaged actively—asking questions, adapting licensing frameworks, and exploring how open-access landing arrangements would function. This collaborative approach demonstrated regulatory maturity and was instrumental in advancing the 2Africa project.

Why is terrestrial fibre harder and costlier?

Terrestrial fibre deployment in Nigeria is fragmented, exposed and highly variable. For example, the federal government has estimated that expanding the country’s fibre backbone to around 90,000 kilometres could require roughly $1.5 billion to $2 billion in investment, depending on funding and scope, suggesting average costs that can vary widely by location and construction conditions rather than a fixed per-kilometre figure. 

Actual costs often exceed simple averages due to factors such as high right-of-way fees, varied state-level charges, delays in approvals, security risks, and power challenges, making inland fibre deployment more expensive and unpredictable than international submarine systems.

Right-of-way charges remain a major cost driver. Although the NCC has worked to standardise and lower these fees, several states still impose charges far above recommended levels. Delays in approvals further inflate costs by extending construction timelines and increasing financing and operational expenses.

“Currently, the overall cost of fibre deployment no longer aligns with the recommendations of the National Executive Council (NEC) and applies only to certain categories,” said Bayo Juba, Associate Director of Fibre Operations at IHS Nigeria. “Securing the right of way often takes a long time, which adds costs and delays construction, ultimately extending project timelines.”

Beyond right-of-way, operators face multiple layers of taxation, demands for community compensation, vandalism and security risks, and the ongoing burden of powering and maintaining infrastructure in areas with unreliable electricity. These factors vary from state to state and can change mid-project, making terrestrial fibre far less predictable than submarine deployments.

The result is a situation in which Nigeria can access massive volumes of international capacity at relatively low and stable costs, but struggles to distribute that capacity efficiently within its own borders.

The price of fragmentation and duplication

Another structural problem driving up costs is the lack of meaningful collaboration among operators. As several industry leaders noted, multiple companies often lay fibre along the same routes, duplicating infrastructure rather than sharing it. This parallel build-out inflates capital expenditure and ultimately pushes costs onto consumers.

Samson Adewunmi Anjorin of LinkOrg Networks, a Nigerian-based internet service provider and systems integrator, argued that true collaboration, rather than rhetorical commitment, is essential. In a functional open-access environment, operators would buy and sell capacity along different segments of a route, rather than each attempting to own the entire path from end to end. Without this mindset shift, Nigeria will continue to overbuild in some corridors while leaving others completely unserved.

“As operators, we need to collaborate in a meaningful way,” Anjorin said. “For example, if you need connectivity from Lagos to Abuja, Company A may already have fibre running to Ekiti, and you could leverage another operator’s network along the route. By working together, we can avoid unnecessary duplication and significantly reduce costs. Instead of each operator building parallel infrastructure where fibre already exists, we should prioritise collaboration across the industry.”

The NCC acknowledges this challenge and says it is working on cost-based wholesale pricing to address anti-competitive behaviour. By establishing clearer benchmarks for what fibre deployment should cost, the regulator hopes to prevent dominant players from using pricing to exclude competitors and to encourage infrastructure sharing.

“I’m pleased to say that we recognise this issue, and the Commission is actively addressing it, as it is a major driver of cost,” said Sunday Oshadami, executive commissioner, technical services, NCC. “We are currently implementing a cost-based wholesale pricing study. Once complete, this framework will ensure that infrastructure sharing is fair and prevent operators from using pricing to unfairly disadvantage competitors.”

Open access as the missing link

Across the discussion, one solution repeatedly emerged as central to lowering terrestrial fibre costs: open access infrastructure. It is a wholesale-only business model that separates the physical fibre network from the actual internet services, allowing a neutral owner to maintain the cables while multiple competing ISPs lease that same infrastructure to provide high-speed broadband to consumers. Open access does not only apply to submarine cables. It can and should extend to long-distance fibre, metro networks, data centres and even access networks.

Examples from other markets show how innovative regulatory models can unlock investment and reduce prices. Meta’s Dada pointed to Peru’s “network as a service” framework, which brought operators, development finance institutions and technology companies together to share both active and passive infrastructure. The result was lower wholesale prices and expanded coverage in underserved areas.

Nigeria is beginning to see similar potential in the rise of colocation data centres and neutral infrastructure providers, which reduce duplication and spread costs across multiple tenants. Extending this logic to fibre networks could transform the economics of inland connectivity.

Financing, local content and long-term thinking

Cost challenges are also deeply tied to financing. Several participants highlighted the difficulty of accessing patient capital for fibre projects, especially for indigenous operators. High interest rates and short loan tenors make it difficult to invest in infrastructure that delivers returns over decades rather than years.

George Onafowokan of Coleman Wires & Cables, an indigenous manufacturer of electrical and telecommunications cables, argued that Nigeria’s dependence on imported equipment and its short-term trading mentality further undermines cost-reduction efforts. Building local manufacturing capacity requires large upfront investment and long-term commitment, but it ultimately lowers prices through scale and reduces exposure to foreign exchange volatility.

The absence of sector-specific funding mechanisms, similar to those available in oil and gas, leaves telecom operators at a disadvantage. Without affordable financing and supportive policy frameworks, even well-designed open access models will struggle to scale.

“If we don’t build our own capacity, prices will never come down, and that’s something we must keep a close eye on,” Onafowokan said. “I strongly believe in collaboration and making it work on the ground. At the same time, no foreign investor can grow your country or deliver what you truly need—it has to come from within.”

Fixing the inland bottleneck

Reducing the cost of terrestrial fibre in Nigeria will require coordinated action across multiple fronts. Right-of-way policies must be consistently enforced across states. Open access models must move from theory to practice, supported by clear wholesale pricing rules. Financing structures must reward long-term infrastructure investment rather than short-term returns.

Perhaps most importantly, policymakers and industry players must treat inland connectivity as a national asset, not just a commercial product. Submarine cables have shown what is possible when Nigeria aligns regulation, investment and innovation around a shared goal. Applying the same discipline to terrestrial fibre could finally close the gap between international capacity and domestic access.

Until that happens, Nigeria will continue to face the irony of abundant bandwidth at its shores and expensive connectivity just a few kilometres inland.