As I left my office along Wampewo Avenue in Kololo, something caught my eye — a familiar scene but one I had not given a lot of attention to, a technician, hard at work, planting yet another fiber pole in an already congested spot. I paused for a moment, watching the scene unfold. Another ISP, laying down more infrastructure in a location already cluttered with poles, cables, and junction boxes. I couldn’t help but wonder: how much was this costing—not just in monetary terms, but in wasted resources, redundant efforts, and the sheer inefficiency of it all?
And for what? To win over a customer already served by another ISP. Only for that customer to switch again next month when another provider lures them away with a slightly cheaper deal. Meanwhile, just a few meters away, another technician was busy fixing a cable cut from yesterday’s chaotic installations.
This is the state of Uganda’s Urban Fiber Wars, a competition meant to drive innovation and expand connectivity but has instead devolved into a wasteful scramble for urban dominance. The real battle isn’t about improving service or reaching the unconnected—it’s about who can plant more poles and lay more cables, often in the same exact spot.
Infrastructure Madness: When More Isn’t Better
If you’ve walked through Kampala or Jinja recently, you’ve probably noticed the explosion of fiber infrastructure. Some cables are blue, orange, green, and red, but most are black. They crisscross overhead like tangled vines in a chaotic jungle. On the ground, poles stand shoulder to shoulder like contestants in a beauty pageant, each claiming a tiny slice of the urban landscape. And just in case you were wondering—yes, each ISP is digging its trench, erecting its poles, and laying its fiber, right next to an existing one.
This aggressive overbuild has turned cities into a battlefield of redundant infrastructure. The result? A costly, unsustainable mess that does nothing to improve Uganda’s digital landscape. Instead of extending internet access to rural areas—where connectivity is scarce and digital inclusion is desperately needed, ISPs are locked in a vicious cycle of urban competition, pouring millions into duplicating infrastructure that already exists.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to share resources and expand network coverage instead of engaging in this costly, never-ending urban turf war?
A Lesson from the American Pole-Sharing Act
This is not just a Ugandan problem. Even in highly developed markets like the United States, excessive infrastructure duplication was a growing concern. To address this, the Pole Attachment Act of 1978 was introduced, requiring utility companies to allow ISPs and telecom providers to share existing poles at regulated rates. This law, which falls under the Telecommunications Act 1996, ensures that broadband providers don’t have to erect their poles or dig up roads unnecessarily, reducing infrastructure costs and speeding up deployments.
The impact? Faster, more affordable internet rollouts. Instead of wasting resources on redundant poles and fiber trenches, American ISPs focus on expanding coverage rather than fighting over the same urban customers.
Uganda could take a page from this playbook. A Pole Sharing Act would enforce infrastructure sharing among ISPs, requiring them to collaborate on fiber routes, ducts, and pole installations. Instead of Kampala’s skyline turning into an unplanned mess of hanging cables and leaning poles, a structured and regulated infrastructure-sharing framework would optimize investment and improve service delivery.
The Uganda Internet Exchange Point: A Blueprint for Collaboration
We have already seen a working example of collaboration in the Uganda Internet Exchange Point (UIXP). Before its creation, ISPs routed local internet traffic through expensive international connections, adding unnecessary costs and delays. Recognizing the inefficiency, providers pooled resources to build an exchange point where local traffic could be routed domestically. The result? Lower costs, faster speeds, and a more resilient network.
If ISPs could set aside their competitive differences to make UIXP work, why not extend the same logic to physical infrastructure? A Uganda Infrastructure Exchange could allow ISPs to share poles, trenches, and fiber ducts, significantly cutting costs, improving efficiency, and ensuring connectivity reaches beyond major cities.
Imagine a system where multiple ISPs could lease access to shared fiber routes, instead of each company digging up the same road repeatedly. This would reduce infrastructure costs, minimize road damage, and—most importantly—free up resources to expand broadband access to rural areas, where connectivity is still a luxury rather than a necessity.
How do we fix this?
Uganda’s internet infrastructure does not need more competition — it needs smarter competition.
Here’s how we get there:
- ISPs must prioritize expansion over overbuild: Instead of fighting over Kampala and Jinja, providers should focus on underserved areas where connectivity is truly needed. Uganda’s internet penetration remains low outside of major cities, yet ISPs are spending millions competing for the same urban customers rather than reaching new ones.
- Shared infrastructure is the future: A well-managed Uganda Infrastructure Exchange would encourage ISPs to share poles, fiber ducts, and trenches, cutting costs for everyone and creating a cleaner, more efficient network.
- The regulator needs to step in: The Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) must introduce policies that mandate infrastructure sharing, ensuring ISPs build smarter, not just bigger. Other countries have already adopted similar models—why are we still stuck in an infrastructure free-for-all?
- A Pole Sharing Act for Uganda: Just like the American Pole Attachment Act, Uganda needs legislation that enforces fair infrastructure sharing, preventing wasteful duplication and lowering broadband deployment costs.
- Consumers must demand better: Instead of chasing the cheapest deal, Ugandans must start prioritizing quality service. A “cheap” connection that doesn’t work is more expensive than a slightly pricier one that delivers reliability. Consumers must hold ISPs accountable for poor service and demand transparency.
The Bottom Line
Uganda’s fiber wars are an expensive, counterproductive battle that benefits no one in the long run. Instead of working against each other, ISPs should work together to build a nationally connected, resilient, and cost-effective network. We’ve already proven that collaboration works with the Uganda Internet Exchange Point. Why not expand that same concept to physical infrastructure?
Because at the end of the day, more poles don’t necessarily mean better internet—smarter investments do.
Editor’s Note: This article was written and provided to PC Tech Magazine by David B Nsubuga, Chief Technology Officer at Blue Crane Communication.
