The Right to Use Radio Spectrum in Egypt: Towards Equitable Digital Governance of a Scarce Resource

Introduction

The radio frequency spectrum is a scarce natural resource and represents a fundamental pillar of modern wireless communications infrastructure. The spectrum can be likened to invisible roads or pathways in the air, used to transmit wireless signals between devices such as mobile phones, radios, televisions, and Wi-Fi equipment. Each type of service (like broadcasting, telecommunications, and internet) has its own dedicated path at a specific frequency; ensuring signals don’t interfere with each other.

Given that the number of these frequencies is limited, their use must be carefully regulated to prevent one service from overwhelming another, and to ensure equal access opportunities for all to these pathways. Therefore, the radio spectrum is subject to precise regulatory frameworks aimed at guaranteeing its fair and effective allocation and distribution among various uses, in alignment with the public interest.

This paper examines the legal and institutional framework governing spectrum management in Egypt, assessing its alignment with principles of digital justice and human rights. The study grounds its analysis in conceptualizing spectrum access rights as an extension of freedom of expression and communication. It highlights the state’s central regulatory role over this resource and its implications for media pluralism and community-led initiatives.

Furthermore, the paper explores the relationship between spectrum policies and the digital divide, presenting comparative models from other countries that provide broader societal opportunities for access and innovation. In conclusion, it offers a set of recommendations aimed at enhancing transparency and public participation while expanding access to this vital resource for a wider range of beneficiaries.

Spectrum Management and Ensuring the Right to Connectivity

In the Egyptian context, the legislature has explicitly recognized the radio spectrum as a limited natural resource. Article no. 49 of the Telecommunications Law No. 10 of 2003 states: “The radio spectrum is a finite natural resource, and the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) is responsible for regulating and managing all matters related to its use in accordance with this law.”

This provision reinforces the state’s legal position as the primary authority in managing the spectrum and highlights the need to establish a fair digital governance system that ensures this vital resource is not monopolized by specific entities, while upholding the principles of transparency, pluralism, and community participation.

From a human rights perspective, ensuring equitable access to this resource constitutes an empowerment of digital rights and an extension of the right to freedom of expression and the free flow of information. International charters, such as Article no. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, affirm the right of every individual to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Since radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications all fall under these media, control over the radio spectrum effectively means control over the means of exercising this right.

The rights-based foundation for the idea of the “right to use the radio spectrum” emerged as a response to the historical challenge of frequency scarcity and the state’s need to regulate its use. Since the early days of radio, the spectrum has been regarded as a rare public resource that requires fair distribution. In many democratic countries, this evolved into the recognition of the public’s rights to this resource through policies that ensure diversity among license holders (governmental, private, and community-based) to achieve media pluralism and prevent monopolies.

For instance, Article 19’s Principles on Broadcast Regulation propose that frequency planning should be open and participatory. They stipulate that frequency allocation plans must ensure equitable distribution of broadcast frequencies across three sectors: public service, private, and community-based broadcasting.

These principles also propose reserving specific frequency bands for future use to guarantee space for non-profit community broadcasting. This vision stems from the fundamental right of all societal groups to have their voices heard over the airwaves, rather than restricting this privilege solely to governments or large corporations.

At the international level, the right of Indigenous communities to manage their own means of communication has also emerged as part of their recognized rights. For example, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) stipulates in Article no. 16 the right of Indigenous peoples to establish their own media in their own languages, and to have access to all forms of non-Indigenous media.

Some countries have implemented this right by allocating spectrum licenses to communication projects that are self-managed by local communities. Such measures are based on a modern understanding of human rights, which considers access to the internet and communications a fundamental element of participation in contemporary society—no less important than access to traditional physical resources.

In Egypt, although there is no explicit constitutional provision defining the radio spectrum as a public right, the current constitution includes articles related to freedom of media and communication. Article no. 70 affirms citizens’ right to publish newspapers and media outlets upon notification, as well as their right to own and manage visual, audio, and digital media. Article no. 71 prohibits prior censorship of media except in times of war and general mobilization.

These provisions implicitly suggest that access to communication and media platforms should not be monopolized by the state alone. Similarly, enabling individuals and civil society to utilize the radio spectrum for establishing community radio stations or local communication networks aligns with the constitutional principle of media pluralism. However, existing legal restrictions may pose significant challenges to realizing these rights without comprehensive structural reforms.

In general, control over the radio spectrum is, at its core, control over a channel of freedom of expression and communication. Accordingly, any policy for managing this resource should take into account Egypt’s obligations toward human rights and ensure that regulation does not lead to the unlawful restriction of the exchange of information or to the exclusion of certain groups from the right to communicate. On the contrary, regulation should help bridge communication gaps and ensure that marginalized voices are heard, by providing space for civil and community initiatives to use the spectrum within the framework of the law.

The Legal and Institutional Context in Egypt

To understand how radio spectrum is managed in Egypt, it is essential to analyze the legal and institutional framework governing this resource. The Telecommunications Law and its subsequent amendments form the backbone of this framework. The law established the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) and the Frequency Regulation Committee, defining licensing conditions and regulations for wireless device usage. Subsequent institutional developments, particularly in the media sector, have influenced the distribution of competencies among various entities, including the establishment of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation in 2018.

First: The National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) and its Powers

The National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority was established under the Telecommunications Law as the national body responsible for all matters related to regulating the telecommunications sector. The law grants the Authority broad powers, including issuing licenses for the operation of telecommunications networks and services, managing the frequency spectrum, setting quality standards, and protecting users’ rights. The law also stipulates that the Authority is responsible for managing all aspects of frequency spectrum use. In practice, this means that no entity—whether governmental or private—can use any frequency in Egypt without official permission and a license from the Authority (NTRA).

The law also stipulates the establishment of the Frequency Regulation Committee within the organizational structure. This committee is formed by a decision of the Minister of Communications, chaired by the Chief Executive Officer of the NTRA, and includes in its membership representatives from sovereign and security bodies (the Presidency, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Interior, and National Security), in addition to a representative from the Egyptian Radio and Television Union (Maspero) and three members nominated by the Minister of Communications.

The committee is tasked with “regulating the frequency spectrum,” meaning that it is the supreme body that approves the plan for allocating frequencies among various uses. It is notable that the committee’s composition is heavily skewed in favor of government and security agencies, with no representation from civil society or the non-governmental private sector. This is reflected in the committee’s decisions, which are predominantly driven by state considerations and priorities—particularly security-related ones—when drafting spectrum plans.

In terms of licensing, Article no. 51 of the law stipulates that “no frequency or frequency band may be used without first obtaining a license from the Authority.” It also sets conditions for granting the license, including taking into account the requirements of the Armed Forces and national security agencies before issuing any license.

Moreover, the law mandates that the NTRA establish public and transparent procedures for applying for frequency allocation, including a 90-day deadline for processing license applications. While these provisions theoretically aim to ensure an organized and fair frequency allocation process, the requirement for security agency approval effectively grants them implicit veto power over any application they deem contrary to their interests.

Furthermore, Article 53 of the law establishes the principle of licensing fees, authorizing the NTRA to set frequency usage charges for various wireless services. All spectrum users are required to pay these fees, with limited exceptions granted to the National Radio and Television Union (ERTU) for its designated frequency bands.

The NTRA has actively implemented the fee and auction system as a significant state revenue source. For instance, during the 2016 4G license allocation, telecom companies paid substantial sums to secure spectrum rights. Orange paid about USD 484 million, while Etisalat Misr’s share amounted to around USD 535 million to acquire 4G spectrum.

These substantial figures reflect the state’s approach to maximizing financial returns from spectrum (as stipulated in Article 50 of the law). However, they simultaneously raise concerns about the impact of these costs on consumers and the ability of smaller new companies to compete in the market.

Second: Regulatory Evolution in Radio and Television Broadcasting

While the Telecommunications Law granted the NTRA and the Frequency Regulation Committee authority over all frequencies, it explicitly exempted radio and television broadcast frequencies used by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union (ERTU/Maspero) from many licensing requirements. Articles no. 51 and 52, among others, waive the need for prior NTRA licensing for frequencies internationally allocated to broadcasting.

Furthermore, these provisions exempt broadcasting equipment owned by the Egyptian Radio and Television Union (ERTU/Maspero) from certain restrictions, requiring only that ERTU notify the NTRA of its possession or operation of such equipment. This historical exemption was logical under the previous framework when Maspero held a state monopoly on broadcasting, thus keeping its frequency allocations and technical requirements exempt from standard licensing complexities.

However, the media landscape partially changed after the 2014 constitution, which stipulated the establishment of independent bodies to regulate the media. In 2018, the Press and Media Regulation Law was issued, creating the Supreme Council for Media Regulation and a National Media Authority to replace the old broadcasting authority. The council was granted the authority to issue licenses for the establishment and operation of visual, audio, and digital media outlets.

As a result, anyone wishing to establish a private TV channel or radio station must now obtain a content and operation license from the Supreme Council, in addition to coordinating with the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (NTRA) to secure an appropriate frequency. Before 2018, the process lacked similar clarity, as private channels resorted to satellite broadcasting through investment licenses, followed by coordination with Nilesat and the NTRA for frequency allocation. Today, however, the regulatory path has been unified—yet under the oversight of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, which sets standards related to content and ownership.

It is worth noting in this context that there is no explicit legal framework facilitating the launch of small or local community radio stations. Current licenses are granted either to large national broadcasters (whether government-owned or private commercial entities) or to digital platforms The Media Regulation Law does not allocate quotas for local community access to the airwaves—unlike some countries that reserve a portion of frequencies for non-profit community radio. Consequently, any grassroots initiative to establish a broadcast station remains subject to the same procedures and conditions applied to major commercial entities. This makes entry into the field exceedingly difficult unless backed by political support or influential connections.

Third: Controlling Wireless Devices and Equipment

Another important aspect of the legal framework is the control of wireless devices and equipment. Article no. 52 of the Telecommunications Law prohibits the possession or operation of any wireless device within the country without the approval of the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, with the exception of Maspero’s broadcasting equipment within its designated scope. This means that even importing Wi-Fi equipment or amateur radio transmitters requires a license or prior approval.

These provisions were recently tightened through an amendment to the Telecommunications Law in December 2022, under Law No. 172 of 2022. This amendment increased the penalties for possessing or using telecommunications equipment without authorization. The government justified this by citing the need to address the spread of unlicensed equipment that could harm security or cause harmful interference. In reality, many of these “unlicensed” devices include, for example, signal boosters that citizens resort to in areas with poor coverage, or devices for distributing the internet domestically over distances longer than permitted.

Tightening the penalty means that anyone who takes personal initiatives to improve connectivity—such as extending a Wi-Fi network to neighbors in a remote village—may expose themselves to legal liability if they do not obtain the necessary permits, which are often not available to ordinary individuals.

Fourth: Centralization and Monopoly

The Egyptian legal framework is characterized by rigidity and centralization, where the authority for distribution and licensing is monopolized by the national regulatory body (NTRA), which itself operates under strong executive and security influence. While this framework has achieved some gains in spectrum regulation and revenue growth, it lacks principles of participatory governance, accountability, and independence.

Moreover, the overlap of jurisdictions between the Telecommunications Regulation Law and the Media Law, in the absence of effective coordination, complicates the licensing processes and opens the door to jurisdictional conflicts. The institutional independence of both the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority and the Supreme Council for Media remains in question, particularly given the lack of transparency standards and societal oversight.

International principles, such as those endorsed by Article 19, recommend that spectrum and broadcast regulatory bodies be independent, transparent, and representative of diverse stakeholders – conditions that remain insufficiently met in the Egyptian context.

The Role of the Radio Spectrum in Digital Control

Ruling regimes have long recognized that controlling telecommunications resources grants them significant leverage over the digital and informational space, and the radio spectrum is one of the most prominent and strategic of these resources. Control over the spectrum does not only mean determining who is allowed to broadcast or provide communication services; it rather opens the door to imposing digital isolation on specific areas or groups through measures such as blocking or cutting off communications.

In the Egyptian context, the features of this pattern of control have been evident since the Telecommunications Law of 2003. The law linked spectrum management to achieving a balance between the requirements of national security and the development of the telecommunications sector. Moreover, ministerial decree no. 258 of 2003 also stipulated that spectrum regulation should serve national industries on the one hand, and meet national security considerations on the other. This linkage embodies the general approach of treating the spectrum as a high-priority security matter, equal in strategic importance to energy or water resources.

It is noteworthy that the composition of the Frequency Regulation Committee reflects a strong security orientation, as it includes representatives from the Ministries of Defense and Interior, as well as the National Security Agency. This structure entrenches the dominance of security voices in spectrum allocation and management decisions, implicitly suggesting that considerations of transparency and pluralism may be relegated to a lower priority. 

This official control over the spectrum has enabled the state to implement unprecedented digital authoritarian measures, most notably the shutdown of telecommunications and internet services during the January 2011 revolution. During that period, the country experienced a near-total blackout of mobile and internet networks for five days—a coordinated move between the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority and telecom companies, executed under security directives. Although the Administrative Judiciary Court later ruled these measures unconstitutional, the incident starkly demonstrated how spectrum control can facilitate the complete digital isolation of an entire society.

Beyond outright shutdowns, there are less drastic digital control tools linked to licensing conditions and corporate compliance. Telecom companies in Egypt are legally required to cooperate with security agencies in implementing blocking orders and providing surveillance tools, as stipulated by the Anti-Cybercrime Law No. 175 of 2018. Moreover, the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) holds the power to issue blocking orders, which in recent years has led to the blocking of hundreds of journalistic and human rights websites without transparent judicial procedures.

Article no. 67 of the Telecommunications Law also grants the competent authorities the right to take control of all networks and telecommunications services and manage them during emergencies or in national security contexts. The article does not define these terms, which provides the state with broad legal cover for exceptional measures that affect users’ rights.

On the other hand, the licensing system itself has been used as a tool for political discrimination, where broadcasting licenses for radio and television remained exclusive to government entities or those close to the state, while independent or opposition voices were excluded. Even when private stations were permitted, licenses were predominantly granted to individuals with direct ties to security apparatuses or loyalist business figures.

Digital Inequality and Spectrum Management’s Role

The term “digital divide” refers to disparities in access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) among different societal groups—whether in terms of infrastructure, digital skills, or affordability. In the Egyptian context, this divide manifests across multiple levels: urban versus rural areas, men versus women, and different economic segments.

Spectrum management policies play a significant—albeit indirect—role in shaping this digital divide by influencing the coverage, quality, and pricing of wireless communication services. This section of the paper outlines the contours of digital inequality in Egypt based on the latest statistics and analyzes how spectrum governance can either bridge or exacerbate these disparities.

2024 data indicates noticeable improvement in digital connectivity indicators across Egypt at the national level, yet hides clear geographic and demographic disparities behind these figures. The internet usage penetration rate among the population reached about 72.2% in early 2024. This means approximately three-quarters of Egyptians now have internet access in some form. The number of users reached about 82 million people. Similarly, mobile phone subscriptions exceeded 110 million subscriptions; equivalent to 97% of the total population (some individuals own more than one line). These numbers reflect widespread cellular infrastructure and mobile internet coverage throughout the country.

However, the details reveal imbalances: According to 2022 data, 84% of urban residents use the internet compared to only 63% of rural residents. The disparity is also evident along gender lines, with internet usage rates reaching 79% among males compared to only 65% among females.

The rural-urban digital divide can be attributed to several factors, including: the concentration of infrastructure investments (such as fiber optics and mobile towers) in major cities more than villages, along with relatively higher rates of digital illiteracy in rural areas and the difficulty for some rural households to afford the service. As for the gender gap, it is partly due to socioeconomic and social factors that limit women’s access to technology or their ability to benefit from it (such as education levels and mobile/internet usage habits).

In addition, there are disparities between governorates: Urban governorates such as Cairo, Port Said, and Alexandria lead in internet access rates, while governorates in Upper Egypt and southern Egypt record lower percentages. These disparities leave large segments of the population either completely or partially outside the digital economy, affecting their opportunities for education, employment, and access to information.

The Impact of Radio Spectrum Policies on the Digital Divide

Radio spectrum management is a critical factor in shaping a country’s digital access map. The policies governing frequency allocation and pricing determine the extent of wireless communication network deployment across different regions. Telecom companies rely on obtaining suitable frequencies under favorable terms to build and expand their networks, making spectrum policies either a driver of digital equity or, conversely, a tool that exacerbates geographic and social disparities in internet access.

This has led to a tangible disparity between rural and urban areas, where cities benefit from faster technological upgrades (such as 4G and 5G) while rural areas lag behind in accessing these services. For example, when 4G services were launched in 2016, companies initially focused on major cities, whereas rural coverage was delayed for years. This uneven distribution of frequencies and network speeds deepens the digital divide and limits rural residents’ opportunities to benefit from digital services.

From another perspective, the way spectrum is managed affects the community’s ability to participate in providing connectivity by allowing the use of open or free bands without individual licenses. Globally, these bands have contributed to enabling grassroots initiatives and individual innovations to expand internet access. In Egypt, although Wi-Fi use is permitted, there remain legal restrictions on transmission power and certain technical standards, which limit the potential for self-expansion.

If the state decides to allocate additional spectrum bands for public use, this would help alleviate pressure on commercial networks and open the door for low-cost local initiatives. Additionally, experiences from some countries demonstrate the effectiveness of “Use it or lose it” policies, which incentivize operators to cover remote areas; otherwise, alternative entities are allowed to use the spectrum in those areas. Implementing such policies in Egypt could enable local organizations or civil associations to operate small networks to bridge gaps, but this would require legislative amendments to ensure greater flexibility in spectrum allocation.

The digital divide cannot be reduced to spectrum issues alone, as it intersects with other factors like education, infrastructure, cost, and digital skills. However, spectrum remains a fundamental prerequisite for connectivity, and its equitable and efficient allocation is a cornerstone of digital equity. Therefore, the success of spectrum policies should be measured by their ability to narrow—not widen—the digital divide. This necessitates a reevaluation of the regulatory and financial frameworks governing this vital resource.

Radio Spectrum, Media Freedom, and Community Initiatives

The radio spectrum is closely linked to media, as it forms the technical foundation for radio and television broadcasting. Throughout its history, Egypt has exercised strict control over this resource, which has negatively impacted the diversity of the media landscape and freedom of expression, and hindered the emergence of independent media and community initiatives. This section of the paper examines the relationship between Egypt’s spectrum policies and media freedom on one hand, and community initiatives seeking independent communication on the other, alongside international comparisons that highlight the existing gap.

Media Freedom and Broadcasting Licenses

For many decades, the Egyptian state monopolized radio and television broadcasting through the Radio and Television Union (Maspero), which maintained full control over the airwaves. With the onset of relative liberalization in the 1990s, some private satellite channels emerged, followed by a limited number of private radio stations. However, these were confined to narrow bands such as FM in Cairo and other major cities. Broadcasting licenses remained concentrated in the hands of entities directly or indirectly connected to the state. To this day, Egypt lacks a local community FM radio station, despite the existence of dozens of large government and private stations.

Regulatory laws, such as the Law on the Regulation of Press and Media, impose strict financial and organizational conditions for obtaining licenses. These requirements include capital, editorial, and security prerequisites that make it nearly impossible for a small civil entity or community association to obtain a local radio broadcasting license.

As a result, some youth initiatives resorted to broadcasting over the internet as an alternative. However, these stations remain constrained in two ways: limited access to a wide audience due to the need for devices and internet connectivity, and being subject to the authority of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation, which requires licenses even for digital platforms and permits their blocking.

This exclusion of community media formats has had a profound impact on freedom of expression and cultural diversity in Egypt. Currently, licensed TV channels and radio stations are owned by media conglomerates allied with state apparatuses, leading to homogenized content and a lack of genuine plurality in media voices. In comparison, some other Arab countries, such as Tunisia and Jordan, have begun recognizing community media—albeit with limited experience. However, to this day in Egypt, there is no official recognition of this form of media.

Community Telecommunications Networks

The issue extends beyond media to include the potential for locally built and managed communication networks. Community Networks—locally owned and operated connectivity solutions—remain officially absent from Egypt’s regulatory landscape. While some informal attempts exist, such as rural communities wirelessly extending internet access from nearby cities, these initiatives lack legal recognition and operate in secrecy to avoid penalties.

The regulatory framework in Egypt recognizes no actors in the telecommunications field other than companies licensed by the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA), which completely excludes community initiatives. In the absence of such recognition, economically unprofitable areas remain deprived or rely on informal solutions that may be subject to legal prosecution.

Comparative Experiences in Radio Spectrum Management

Spectrum management policies vary globally, often reflecting a country’s political philosophy and commitment to human rights and inclusive development. Selected international case studies can inspire policymakers to adopt alternative approaches that promote pluralism, expand access, and integrate socio-cultural considerations into spectrum regulation. This section highlights pioneering models in the allocation of spectrum to communities, facilitating access to marginalized areas, and balancing governance with development goals.

Mexico: Recognizing Spectrum as a Right for Indigenous Communities

Following a constitutional reform in 2013, Mexico adopted the 2014 Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law, which established three categories of licenses: commercial, public, and social (including community). This framework provided indigenous and ethnic communities with a legal tool to access the spectrum and obligated the Federal Telecommunications Institute to allocate a portion of the spectrum bands to these groups. The experience relied on an explicit constitutional provision (Article 2) that guarantees indigenous peoples the right to manage their own affairs, including establishing their own communication systems.

One of the most prominent manifestations of these policies is the licensing granted to the Telecomunicaciones Indígenas Comunitarias (TIC) network to operate GSM networks in the state of Oaxaca. The network covers dozens of villages and provides essential communication services at symbolic prices. The success of this experience is due to the organic integration of constitutional protection, political will, and legislative reform. The Mexican model exemplifies how spectrum can be transformed from a monopolized resource into a collective right that promotes social and cultural justice.

United States: Priority Window for Tribes

In a landmark move, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated a seven-month priority window for Indigenous tribes to apply for licenses in the 2.5 GHz band in rural areas that include their lands. The commission offered the spectrum free of charge, recognizing these communities’ need for sovereign and sustainable communication means.

As a result, more than 400 tribal entities obtained licenses, including the Navajo Nation, which used the spectrum to establish Wi-Fi and 4G networks within its territories. This experience highlights that developmental and social considerations can outweigh financial ones, as free allocation to communities was preferred over commercial auctions.

Europe: Community Broadcasting Quotas & Flexible Regulations

In several European countries, community broadcasting is recognized as an integral part of the media system. In the United Kingdom, since 2004, there has been an official system for “community radio” licenses, under which dozens of licenses are granted to non-profit stations serving specific neighborhoods. The frequencies for these stations are carefully allocated, and they are subject to advertising revenue caps to ensure their community independence. Some of these stations are partially funded through a support fund financed by deductions from advertising revenues on commercial stations.

In France, “association radios” fall under the Communications Act and benefit from similar regulatory and financial facilitations. The goal of this allocation is to promote audio diversity and provide platforms for local communities and minorities to express their identity and voice.

Moreover, some European countries adopt the concept of “Shared Spectrum,” where frequencies are allocated for university experiments or local operators through temporary licenses.

South Africa: Spectrum Access for Civil Society

Amid geographical and economic challenges, South Africa has adopted relatively flexible policies in managing the spectrum in favor of communities. Among the most notable of these policies is the experimental license granted to the Zenzeleni project—a community-owned network in a remote area that utilizes simple technology and a hybrid wired-wireless approach to deliver connectivity services.

Additionally, the state utilized TV White Spaces technology (the use of unused frequencies in television broadcasting) in projects to provide internet access in villages in partnership with local universities. The regulatory authority approved regulatory exemptions to facilitate these projects, enabling internet connectivity in villages that had remained outside commercial coverage for decades.

India and Brazil: Bridging the Gap through Spectrum Policy

Since the 1990s, India has adopted a “phone for every village” policy, encouraging companies to expand into rural areas through tax incentives and additional spectrum allocations. The main tool was the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF), financed by fees imposed on licensed companies and used to build infrastructure in underserved areas. This fund helped establish thousands of towers benefiting millions of citizens, which were then leased to telecom companies.

As for Brazil, it adopted a law in 2018 that legalized the operation of small Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This helped many service providers use wireless technologies and open spectrum bands to offer services in remote and rural areas. The Brazilian Communications Agency established a special framework that facilitates obtaining small-scale licenses for these providers and grants them legal protection without imposing the heavy regulatory burdens reserved for large companies.

Alternative Policies and Recommendations

In light of the above and the review of international comparative models, there is an urgent need to adopt a set of alternative policies and practical recommendations to reform Egypt’s spectrum management system. This reform aims to achieve digital justice, ensure transparency and participation, and create opportunities for new actors from civil society and local initiatives to engage in the telecommunications sector.

First: Legal and Regulatory Reforms

1. Amendment of Article no. 67 of the Telecommunications Law: The state’s powers to cut communications should be restricted by introducing strict legal controls, such as specifying the permissible cases for cutting (war, major natural disasters), requiring a prior judicial order or Cabinet approval, and notifying the House of Representatives to ensure political oversight.
2. Legal Recognition of Community Media: The Media Regulation Law should be amended to include a special category of licenses for non-profit community and local broadcasters, with simplified conditions, symbolic fees, limited broadcast capacities, while ensuring actual community participation in their management.
3. Allocating Experimental Spectrum Bands for Community Networks: It is possible to introduce short-term experimental permits for civil associations or universities to operate local wireless networks within narrow bands, with the aim of testing alternative connectivity models, without affecting the interests of commercial operators.
4. Civil Society Representation in the Frequency Regulation Committee:
5. The committee’s composition should be modified by adding two members representing civil society and academic institutions, to ensure social and rights-based perspectives are considered when making spectrum allocation decisions.
6. Enhancing Regulatory Bodies’ Independence: The appointment processes for National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) leadership must be reviewed, reducing its subordination to the Ministry of Communications and ensuring budget autonomy. This would reinforce the separation between regulatory and executive entities.

Secondly: Incentive Policies to Involve New Groups

1. Allocating a Spectrum Quota for Community Projects: It is recommended to reserve 10% of the radio and television broadcast bands for non-profit projects, to be gradually activated based on community demand.
2. Mandating Corporate Social Responsibility Programs for Telecom Companies: Every new license should include a clause mandating the company to support a community project in broadcasting, communications, or digital training.
3. “Use It or Share It” Policy: It is recommended to adopt a spectrum-sharing system based on the CBRS model, allowing local providers to use unused frequencies for a limited period.
4. Investing in Community Training: It is essential to develop national programs for training individuals in operating small-scale networks, maintaining equipment, and managing community media stations.

Third: Enhancing Transparency and Public Participation

1. Periodic Publication of National Spectrum Plans: A biennial document should be issued detailing frequency allocations, upcoming spectrum releases, and allocation policies.
2. Public Consultation Mechanisms: Major policy decisions should be preceded by public hearings, with draft regulations made available for public debate.
3. License Appeal Mechanism: An independent committee should be established to review rejected applicant complaints, ensuring integrity in the licensing process.

Fourth: Improving Technical and Operational Efficiency

1. Maximizing Frequency Use through Sharing Technologies: It is recommended to promote time/space division technologies to enable multiple entities to share the same frequency band.
2. Monitoring Unused Frequencies: The National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) must develop tools to track idle frequencies, with provisions for revocation or reallocation when necessary.
3. Facilitating Licensing for Small Devices: A type-approval system should be implemented for short-range devices, reducing market bureaucracy while encouraging innovation.

Implementing these recommendations requires a political vision that recognizes spectrum governance as a tool for achieving digital justice. While results won’t be immediate, adopting gradual steps—beginning with legal and regulatory reforms—will establish the foundation for a participatory and stable environment.