In 2023, I wrote that if Nigeria removes fuel subsidies, companies which typically use the national uniform pricing model may have to go region-based pricing. In other words, if the petroleum equalization fund which used to make the prices of petrol uniform across Nigeria goes, making it possible that the price of petrol in Sokoto would be different from the price in Lagos, no one should expect companies to offer services like telecom at the same national price point in Lagos and Sokoto.

Today, we are reading that the playbook is loading: “Telecommunications operators in Nigeria are pushing for a shift from the existing uniform national tariff structure to a regional tariff regime, which would allow them to adjust pricing based on operational challenges in different states.”

Later in 2024, I wrote: ‘Good People, Nigeria is attaining Energy Federalism (not fiscal federalism) and the implications are massive. In an upcoming speech titled “Energy Federalism and Reshaping of Nigeria’s Regional Comparative Advantages”,  I will explain how muting the Petroleum Equalisation Funds (PEF) and Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) will reshape regions in Nigeria’.

But there is nothing to panic because there is a solution: give the telcos what they want, but make it clear that those in high density cities like Lagos and PHC must pay more, and demand they will use that to compensate in other parts of the country. For example, a 2GB data bill could cost N2,200 in Lagos (extra N100) and that extra enables a telco to sell to someone in Sokoto at N2,000 when optimally both would have been billed each N2,100.

Nigeria’s economy is being redesigned regionally. The challenge is that opportunities are not well distributed regionally, and that is why the reforms would affect some regions in bad ways. Lagos has three seaports with another on the way when no other city has an active one or even a deep seaport.

That is an asymmetric positioning which pushes the importer from Aba to spend an additional N6 million to truck a container from Lagos to Aba. But if we say we have a deep seaport in Akwa Ibom, even someone from Maiduguri will save at least 30% on the trucking fee compared with Lagos’. So, what the telcos are asking may not be fair considering that those which do not even have means to pay may be expected to pay more. Yet, you do not blame private companies for a lack of a national economic development plan that supports all regions uniformly.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently updated its guidelines to include provisions for cryptocurrencies, marking a significant step in recognizing digital assets within its global financial framework. On March 20, 2025, the IMF released the seventh edition of its Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual (BPM7), which formally incorporates cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and other digital assets into its statistical standards for tracking economic activity and cross-border transactions. This is the first time the IMF has explicitly addressed crypto.

The updated guidelines classify digital assets based on their characteristics. For instance, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which have no underlying liabilities or issuer, are categorized as “non-produced, non-financial assets” (akin to capital assets). In contrast, stablecoins or other tokens backed by liabilities are treated as financial instruments. The BPM7 also provides guidance on recording complex crypto-related activities, such as mining and staking, as well as cross-border transfers of digital assets, reflecting their growing role in the global economy.

This move signals the IMF’s acknowledgment of the increasing economic impact of cryptocurrencies and aims to standardize how countries report these assets in their balance of payments statistics. It’s a practical step toward integrating digital assets into macroeconomic monitoring, though it aligns with the IMF’s broader stance that crypto should not be granted official currency or legal tender status, as reiterated in prior policy statements. Instead, the focus is on tracking and managing their implications for financial stability and international transactions.

The inclusion of cryptocurrencies in the IMF’s updated Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual (BPM7) carries several significant implications for the global financial system, national economies, and the crypto ecosystem. Countries will now be expected to report crypto-related transactions—such as cross-border transfers, mining rewards, or staking income—in their balance of payments statistics. This increases visibility into how digital assets flow through economies.

Policymakers and regulators gain better data to assess the scale of crypto activity, potentially leading to more informed monetary and fiscal policies. It could also expose previously hidden economic activity, especially in nations with high crypto adoption. By formally recognizing cryptocurrencies in its statistical framework, the IMF is indirectly validating their role in the modern economy, even if it stops short of endorsing them as official currencies. This could encourage governments and financial institutions to take crypto more seriously, potentially accelerating mainstream adoption.

The guidelines provide a blueprint for classifying and reporting crypto assets (e.g., Bitcoin as a non-financial asset, stablecoins as financial instruments), which could push countries toward harmonized regulatory approaches. Nations with lax or no crypto regulations might face pressure to align with IMF standards, especially if they seek IMF assistance or want to maintain credibility in global markets. This could lead to tighter oversight, taxation, or anti-money laundering (AML) measures.

Countries where crypto is widely used (e.g., El Salvador, which adopted Bitcoin as legal tender) will need to reconcile their domestic policies with IMF reporting requirements, despite the IMF’s opposition to crypto as legal tender. This could create tension between national sovereignty and international expectations, potentially affecting IMF loan conditions or economic assessments for such countries. The IMF has long warned about crypto’s potential to destabilize economies—through capital flight, tax evasion, or undermining monetary policy—and these guidelines allow it to monitor those risks more closely.

If significant crypto outflows or volatility are detected, the IMF might push for stricter capital controls or recommend policies to mitigate systemic risks, influencing how nations manage digital assets. Clear classifications and reporting standards reduce uncertainty for banks, payment processors, and other financial institutions dealing with crypto. This could pave the way for greater institutional participation in the crypto market, such as custody services or cross-border payment solutions, driving further growth in the sector.

While the BPM7 focuses on measurement rather than policy, it sets a foundation for future IMF recommendations on crypto governance. Over time, this could shape global norms around crypto regulation, taxation, and integration into traditional finance, potentially influencing debates about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) versus decentralized cryptocurrencies.

The IMF’s updated guidelines mark a pragmatic acknowledgment of crypto’s permanence in the global economy, but they also signal a push for control and oversight. The implications range from improved economic data to heightened regulatory scrutiny, with ripple effects for governments, businesses, and crypto users worldwide. The tension between innovation and stability will likely define how these changes play out in practice.

Telecommunications operators in Nigeria are pushing for a shift from the existing uniform national tariff structure to a regional tariff regime, which would allow them to adjust pricing based on operational challenges in different states.

The proposal, discussed at the 7th edition of the Policy Implementation Assisted Forum (PIAFo) in Lagos, comes amid mounting concerns over high operational costs, multiple taxation, and security threats to telecom infrastructure.

Industry stakeholders note that a regional tariff model would ensure fairer pricing, rewarding states that create a business-friendly environment while making those that impose high costs on telecom operations pay more for services. This move, they believe, will compel some state governments to revise policies that have made telecom operations difficult, particularly in areas such as multiple taxation, Right of Way (RoW) charges, and bureaucratic bottlenecks.

Right of Way Charges: A Major Concern for Telcos

One of the key operational challenges faced by telecom operators is the cost of Right of Way (RoW) charges, which refers to the fee levied by state governments for laying telecom infrastructure such as fiber optic cables. Ideally, these charges are meant to facilitate infrastructure development, but in many states, they have been inflated, becoming a revenue-generating tool rather than a means to support connectivity.

While some states, such as Kaduna, Ekiti, and Katsina, have reduced or eliminated RoW charges to encourage broadband penetration, others continue to impose exorbitant fees. These high costs, coupled with multiple layers of taxation, have significantly increased the cost of expanding telecom networks, especially in underserved rural areas.

The Chairman of the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), Engr. Gbenga Adebayo pointed out that some states make it extremely difficult for telecom companies to operate due to excessive taxation and infrastructure challenges. He stated that these issues should be reflected in the pricing of telecom services.

“We may have to reconsider our national tariffs and look at regional tariffs. If you are aware that the cost of doing business is high in a particular state and it’s impossible to negotiate with them, factor the cost of deployment in those areas into the cost of providing services,” Adebayo said.

Multiple Taxation and Security Threats Driving Cost of Operations

Another pressing issue for telcos is the rising cost of maintaining infrastructure due to multiple taxation and security challenges. In several states, telecom operators face levies from various government agencies, leading to an increase in the cost of operations. In some cases, local governments, state agencies, and even non-state actors impose fees on telecom infrastructure, making it expensive to deploy and maintain services.

Beyond taxation, telecom infrastructure is frequently targeted by vandals and criminals, further increasing the cost of service delivery. Operators often have to spend millions of naira to repair damaged sites and secure installations, with no financial compensation from the states where these incidents occur.

At the forum, discussions also focused on the need to safeguard telecom infrastructure. The convener of PIAFo, Mr. Omobayo Azeez, emphasized that the recent passage of the Critical National Information Infrastructure (CNII) Order by President Bola Tinubu was a milestone in strengthening Nigeria’s digital economy.

However, telecom operators insist that without a pricing model that reflects their operational costs, they will continue to struggle with financial losses and service disruptions.

The President of the Association of Telecommunications Companies of Nigeria (ATCON), Mr. Tony Emoekpere, supported the idea of a regional tariff structure, stating that it is unfair for telecom companies to operate under a uniform national tariff when costs vary significantly across states.

“If it costs me extra to haul diesel from one part of the country to another, I should be able to add that cost to the service or you compensate me for that by making your environment attractive for me to operate,” Emoekpere explained.

A Necessary Push for States to Adjust Telecom Policies

While discussions on the feasibility of the proposal continue, many stakeholders believe that a regional tariff system is the right call, as it would put pressure on states that have refused to create a business-friendly environment.

Currently, telecom operators are at the mercy of state policies that often disregard the importance of affordable and accessible telecom services. By introducing a pricing structure that reflects the realities of each state, governments that have been reluctant to lower telecom taxes and RoW charges may be forced to revise their policies to attract better service at lower costs for their residents.

In states where RoW charges remain high, a regional tariff system would mean higher service costs for consumers. This, in turn, could push state governments to rethink their policies and align with the Federal Government’s broadband penetration agenda, which aims to expand connectivity across the country.

NCC’s Role in Approving a Regional Tariff Model

While telecom operators are eager to implement the regional tariff system, its approval lies with the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), which regulates pricing in the industry.

The NCC recently approved a 50% tariff increase for telecom operators after years of agitation over rising operational costs. However, the agency still requires telcos to operate under a national tariff regime, ensuring that subscribers pay the same rates regardless of location.

If the NCC approves a regional tariff structure, it would mark a major transformation in Nigeria’s telecom sector. While consumers in business-friendly states may enjoy stable or even reduced pricing, those in states with difficult operational environments could see a rise in telecom costs. However, there is concern that it will impact the affordability of telecom services since some regions fall into underserved areas with low disposable income.