Summary

  • Liberia's draft would protect continued use of a facility when sharing is technically feasible and economically viable, unless all potential users decline. An owner's preferred removal date would not settle the matter.
  • Customers would need notice and alternatives. The proposal already divides costs by capacity used; turning that principle into a maintained, usable facility is the harder task.

Imagine receiving notice that your connection is about to change because a facility behind it is being retired. You need another way to stay connected, not an explanation of which company owns the steel. Yet for the companies involved, that distinction matters: one may be ready to remove a tower while another could still use it. A replacement would mean another construction job, with its own cost and work to complete.

This is an imagined situation, not a reported Liberian outage or dispute. It explains the practical problem addressed by the draft from Liberia Telecommunications Authority (LTA): the end of an owner's use need not be the end of a facility's useful life.

The draft would require a provider to assess sharing or transfer before retirement. Under “Infrastructure Sharing Consideration” on printed page 25, LTA would refuse permission where sharing is both technically feasible and economically viable, unless all potential users decline. Both tests matter. A tower that somebody wants but nobody can safely or economically operate is not the same as a useful shared asset.

There is a cost rule. There is still a bill to settle.

Start with an ordinary bill for use: section 25.1 says costs should be shared fairly according to the capacity each party uses. The draft also provides for cost-oriented charges, a reasonable return and dispute procedures. Contrary to this article's earlier account, it does not leave payment out.

Now consider the work needed before a handover. Somebody has to inspect the structure. A repair may be needed before another operator can rely on it. Dividing everyday use is a starting point, not an automatic answer to every one-off expense. These are questions about applying the proposal, not a claim that any Liberian company has already been left paying another's bills.

The draft's technical checks help explain why simply stopping the demolition is not enough. Is the structure strong enough? Can people reach it for maintenance? Will service performance hold up? Sharing active equipment also requires separation and privacy safeguards. The economic assessment asks about sustainable upkeep, savings and competition. The aim is continued use, not a monument to a connection that no longer works.

Three clocks before the last connection closes

The removal crew's date would be only one date to plan around. A decommissioning plan would be due at least 90 days before removal, and LTA would have 30 days to approve or reject it.

Customers have a separate protection. Service changes must be announced publicly at least 60 days ahead, and affected customers must be offered alternatives. This is not simply another deadline for submitting the owner's application. It is a duty to prepare people for the change.

What if service would still be threatened? LTA could then attach conditions to the withdrawal, including a mandatory transfer. Transfer is a possible response to that threat, not an automatic consequence of giving 60 days' notice. The distinction matters: a notice tells a customer what is coming; an alternative gives them a way to remain connected.

There is a similar practical question before construction. A proposal for shareable passive infrastructure must be published at least 15 calendar days before the design is finalised. Other providers get 20 working days to express interest. Different units and starting points make those more than two numbers to subtract.

The design obligations also need to fit together. Section 13.4 says there is no obligation to develop or modify new infrastructure to support sharing requests. Section 13.7 nevertheless requires changes for reasonable anticipated needs. A company preparing to build needs to know what it must allow for before the design becomes a construction job.

Sharing is not new to Liberian law. Section 41 of the Telecommunications Act 2007 already provides for co-location: placing equipment together where that is technically and economically feasible without significant extra construction. The parties can agree compensation, or LTA can determine it. The 2009 interconnection rules also cover physical access and compensation. This draft pays particular attention to the steps before construction and before withdrawal.

A meeting is not the finished rule

At the 9 October meeting in Paynesville, LTA described the text as an initial proposal. Its account names electricity, environmental and public-works coordination alongside telecom stakeholders. The published document examined here remains marked “DRAFT”.

Two supporting sources also need correcting. The PPCC expert-review procurement record showed “Awarded”, dated 15 October, when retrieved on 21 October. A contract award does not prove the review has been delivered. Its general title does not establish that this infrastructure proposal is its only subject, either.

The sharing and permitting paper hosted by ITU needs a different correction: it is a submission by SBA Communications, not ITU's own guidance.

For a customer, the useful outcome is not a tower saved on paper. It is an alternative connection, or a facility that remains safe, maintained and in service. Liberia's draft gives the regulator reasons to look beyond an owner's closing date. Whether that helps will depend on what is ready when that date arrives.

Correction, 21 October 2026: clarified the draft's express cost-allocation rule and the scope of section 13.4; updated the procurement status and corrected the authorship of the ITU-hosted paper. The unrelated essay analogy and its incorrect note number have been removed.