Africa’s cell networks have expanded considerably over the previous decade, bringing protection to extra individuals. But wider protection has not translated into widespread web use or community high quality on par with different areas.
A new report by the GSMA, Spectrum Policy in Africa: Enabling Investment and Empowering Consumers Through Effective Spectrum Pricing, identifies the excessive price of accessing radio spectrum—the invisible radio frequencies that carry cell calls and web knowledge—as a central bottleneck. African cell operators pay considerably extra for comparatively much less spectrum, leaving them with restricted capability to develop or enhance service high quality.
According to GSMA Intelligence, spectrum costs eat 0.82% of cell operators’ income per 100 MHz in Africa, in contrast with 0.66% in the remainder of the world. Meanwhile, African operators maintain a median of about 570 MHz of spectrum beneath 7 GHz, 24% lower than the worldwide peer common of roughly 750 MHz.
The imbalance extends past value and availability to licence period. Only 9 African nations routinely grant spectrum licences lasting 20 years or extra, whereas licences of 20 years or indefinite period are customary throughout Europe, North America and developed Asian markets.
Lowering spectrum charges might free up vital capital for network expansion, however decrease charges alone don’t assure higher connectivity. The essential take a look at for African regulators is whether or not extra reasonably priced entry may be tied to measurable enhancements in community high quality and web adoption, notably in underserved communities the place preliminary monetary returns stay low.
Africa’s connectivity hole goes past protection
The scale of the problem is clear within the hole between community availability and precise web use. According to the GSMA report, cell broadband protection in Africa rose from 59% of the inhabitants in 2015 to 92% in 2025. Over the identical interval, 4G protection expanded from 7% to 83%, whereas 5G reached 15% of the inhabitants by the top of 2025.
Yet wider protection has not translated into widespread adoption. In 2025, solely 28% of Africa’s inhabitants used cell web on their very own gadgets, in contrast with 66% in the remainder of the world, the report famous. About 64% lived inside attain of cell broadband however didn’t use cell web, whereas one other 8% remained exterior cell broadband protection altogether.
The figures level to a two-sided problem: extending networks to individuals nonetheless past their attain and making web entry helpful and reasonably priced for these already lined. Spectrum pricing can affect operators’ means to spend money on community capability and enlargement, however closing the utilization hole additionally is determined by components comparable to system affordability, knowledge costs, and digital expertise.
This distinction issues. Extending a community to a group doesn’t assure that residents can afford smartphones, knowledge, or dependable electrical energy. Nor does protection routinely imply that customers will expertise quick, reliable connections.
Average cell obtain speeds in Africa reached simply over 27 Mbps in 2025, towards 98 Mbps in the remainder of the world. African customers consumed a median of round 3 GB of cell knowledge per connection every month, in contrast with 14 GB elsewhere. These figures level to a problem that entails each community capability and individuals’s means to make use of the web.
Why spectrum costs matter
Operators want spectrum to hold rising volumes of cell site visitors. But the GSMA estimates that African operators had a median of 570 MHz of cell spectrum beneath 7 GHz assigned to them on the finish of 2025, in contrast with 750 MHz in the remainder of the world.
Despite having much less spectrum, African operators face a better price per unit assigned. When spectrum costs are adjusted for the quantity of spectrum held and in contrast with operator revenues, the burden is about 24% greater in Africa than elsewhere.
That burden comes at a tough time for the trade. Average revenue per user across Africa fell by about 49% in actual phrases between 2015 and 2025, in accordance with the report. Revenue earned per gigabyte additionally declined sharply as knowledge providers turned extra reasonably priced. Operators are due to this fact anticipated to serve extra customers and deal with extra site visitors whereas incomes much less per connection.
High spectrum costs can squeeze the cash accessible for community enlargement. They can also discourage operators from buying further frequencies, leaving worthwhile spectrum unused whereas networks wrestle with capability constraints.
The strain is especially necessary as mobile data traffic in Africa is forecast to grow by around 160% between 2025 and 2030. Without adequate spectrum and investment, rising demand might worsen congestion and weaken service high quality.
Egypt and Tanzania present why pricing issues
The report’s comparability of Egypt and Tanzania illustrates how spectrum coverage can affect investment circumstances.
In Egypt, spectrum costs have risen sharply amid forex depreciation and inflation. Because some spectrum and licence charges had been denominated in US {dollars} whereas operators earned income in Egyptian kilos, forex actions elevated the efficient price. Operators additionally paid a mixed $600 million for 5G licences with out receiving further spectrum in return.
Over the previous decade, Egypt’s spectrum costs elevated greater than fivefold in nominal phrases and by greater than 50% in actual phrases. Meanwhile, operator revenues fell by 16%, and investment declined by 40%, the report says. These figures don’t set up that spectrum costs alone triggered the investment decline, however they display how rising costs and weakening revenues can mix to constrain spending.
Tanzania provides a distinct strategy. In July 2025, its regulator auctioned 200 MHz of spectrum within the 3.6–3.8 GHz band, which is extensively used for 5G. Reserve costs had been set at a 30% low cost to estimated market costs, and operators had been allowed to unfold funds over time. Coverage obligations had been additionally designed round achievable rollout targets.
Tanzania elevated the quantity of spectrum accessible to operators with out considerably elevating the per-unit price burden, in accordance with the report. The lesson just isn’t that spectrum ought to merely be low-cost, however that pricing, fee phrases, licence period and protection necessities ought to work collectively to help investment.
Lower charges must result in measurable investment
Spectrum pricing is just one a part of the issue. Governments can cut back charges, however operators should hesitate to construct in areas the place populations are dispersed, incomes are low, electrical energy is unreliable or backhaul infrastructure is dear.
Licence obligations also can make spectrum extra pricey than the headline payment suggests. In Benin, the report estimates that protection and service-quality obligations add costs equal to 66% of annual operator income, in contrast with direct spectrum costs of seven%. In Rwanda and Uganda, obligations additionally considerably enhance the general burden.
Such necessities can serve a public objective by extending providers to underserved areas. But if they’re too costly or poorly designed, they will undermine the investment they’re meant to encourage. Regulators must align obligations with native circumstances and take into account reductions or different incentives when operators are required to serve commercially unattractive areas.
The GSMA recommends setting spectrum costs in accordance with the worth operators can realistically generate, reasonably than counting on outdated public sale benchmarks.
The economics of serving distant communities transcend constructing a cell tower. Where electrical energy and transport infrastructure are weak, operators should spend money on energy programs, transport gasoline over tough roads, and construct backhaul hyperlinks connecting websites to the broader community. Equipment theft provides alternative costs, whereas poor entry will increase routine upkeep costs. GSMA Intelligence estimates that distant rural base stations price 35–40% extra to function than city websites, on common. These recurring bills assist clarify why cheaper spectrum alone could not make rural protection obligations commercially viable.
It additionally requires longer licence phrases, predictable renewal guidelines, technology-neutral licensing and clear roadmaps exhibiting when further spectrum will develop into accessible.
These measures would give operators higher confidence in planning and financing community upgrades. The report estimates that reforms might deliver an extra 50 million individuals inside 4G protection and 170 million inside 5G protection by 2035, whereas rising common obtain speeds by 30–50%. It initiatives greater than $120 billion in further cumulative financial output throughout Africa between 2026 and 2035. These are projected advantages, not assured outcomes.
The actual take a look at is what customers acquire
Lower spectrum charges shouldn’t be handled as an finish in themselves. Their worth lies in whether or not they assist operators spend money on stronger networks, lengthen protection to underserved areas and enhance the standard and affordability of providers.
That requires governments to measure what occurs after charges change: how a lot new spectrum is assigned, how a lot operators make investments, the place new infrastructure is constructed, and whether or not connection speeds and protection enhance. Regulators should additionally distinguish between higher community availability and higher web adoption, which is determined by system costs, knowledge costs, digital expertise and different obstacles.
For customers, the final word profit ought to be greater than a more healthy steadiness sheet for telecom operators. It ought to imply fewer dropped connections, quicker downloads, extra dependable entry to on-line providers and a practical likelihood for underserved communities to get linked.
Spectrum coverage alone can’t remedy Africa’s digital divide. But if governments value the spectrum in ways in which protect investment capability and tie public obligations to achievable outcomes, decrease charges might develop into a significant a part of the answer. Whether Africans really get higher connectivity will rely on what operators and regulators do with that chance.
