Rural telecommunications operators in Nigeria face operating costs up to three times higher than those of their urban counterparts, while generating less than 10 per cent of urban revenue, highlighting the financial challenges of expanding connectivity to underserved communities.
Chidi Ajuzie, Group Chief Operating Officer of WTES Projects Limited, disclosed this during his opening presentation at RuralConnect 2.0, organised by Business Metrics Limited in Lagos on Tuesday, October 13, 2026.
Speaking on “From Infrastructure to Assets: Building the Fibre, Towers and Technology Ecosystem for Rural Connectivity,” Ajuzie said the disparity between deployment costs and revenue generation weakened the commercial viability of conventional telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas.
“Capital costs for rural is two times that of urban areas. Running costs for rural areas are three times that of urban areas,” he said.
He added that revenue from rural operations was less than 10 per cent of what operators generated in urban locations.
“But revenue for rural areas is less than 10% of urban,” Ajuzie said.
According to him, the cost structure makes conventional network deployment models difficult to sustain, particularly in communities with limited purchasing power and lower demand for telecommunications services.
“If you’re running a payback cycle and you’re running on the conventional macro side, you will never be profitable. Never,” he said.
Ajuzie argued that improving rural connectivity requires a shift from infrastructure deployment alone to investment models that account for energy costs, operational sustainability, affordability and actual usage.
He said the industry must adopt a combination of technologies and financing arrangements to bridge the connectivity gap without creating infrastructure that cannot be maintained.
Ajuzie identified energy supply as a major cost driver for rural telecommunications infrastructure, noting that diesel and grid electricity accounted for about 40 per cent of the energy costs of rural sites.
“So if you take off the rural site from diesel, you actually take off 40% of their base costs,” he said.
He proposed integrating telecommunications infrastructure with mini-grid projects to reduce operating expenses and extend electricity access to surrounding communities.
“Every mini-grid the REA builds should also be a connectivity site,” Ajuzie said, referring to the Rural Electrification Agency (REA).
He maintained that electricity and broadband infrastructure should be planned together rather than developed as separate investments.
“The energy and the data should be planned as a single infrastructure,” he said.
Under the proposed model, telecommunications sites could serve as anchor customers for mini-grid operators, while nearby households, schools and businesses benefit from improved electricity supply and internet access. The approach, he said, could help distribute infrastructure costs across multiple users while improving the commercial case for rural connectivity.
Ajuzie said expanding network coverage would not automatically translate into increased internet adoption, as affordability, electricity shortages and limited access to relevant digital services continued to constrain usage.
He argued that the rural connectivity challenge extended beyond whether a network signal was available to whether residents could afford devices and data and had the resources to use digital services.
“So we’re actually expanding coverage. So when we say that the rural communities are excluded, perhaps not in coverage but actually in usage,” he said.
He also highlighted the need to deploy different technologies according to local conditions, noting that fibre and conventional mobile infrastructure might not be the most economical options for every community.
“The solution when you give it to the rural communities will not be a single solution. It has to be a mix of solutions,” Ajuzie said.
He identified satellite connectivity and smaller internet service providers as potential components of a broader strategy to reach underserved locations.
The presentation also stressed the need to address demand-side constraints, including the cost of internet-enabled devices and data, alongside the challenges facing infrastructure providers.
The WTES Projects executive warned against measuring the success of rural telecommunications projects solely by the amount of infrastructure deployed, arguing that investment should be assessed by whether it delivers functioning and sustainable services.
Citing an earlier rural telephony project, he said: “This was a $200 million project, 218 LGAs, but it never went live. None. It did not happen at all.”
He used the example to highlight the risks associated with infrastructure investments that fail to deliver their intended outcomes.
“Buy Outcomes, don’t buy technology,” Ajuzie said.
He also called for greater attention to operating expenditure, including electricity, backup power and maintenance, arguing that funding infrastructure deployment without providing for its continued operation could undermine long-term service delivery.
Ajuzie further advocated public subsidies to improve the economics of rural network investments, particularly in communities where low demand and limited revenue make commercial deployment difficult.
