Dear Baka Lee @BakarLie That is a fair question. If you understood those words as reassurance that your business would be given a workable path. The focus shifted from studying the model to making a regulatory decision. @UCC_Official initially engaged hotspot representatives, formed a multidisciplinary team, and temporarily suspended enforcement while the assessment continued. It later concluded that the current model could not be licensed as presented because of gaps in authorisation, resale arrangements, tax reporting, equipment compliance and customer safeguards. “Innovation comes first” recognises how new businesses emerge. It does not automatically exempt them from existing law while an appropriate framework is considered. But your question still matters: the assessment should clearly explain the findings and outline practical next steps. It should not erase the commitment to explore a workable solution. #Tulinamwe

Dear David @damuliradavid If someone independently sells internet access to people around the workplace, that constitutes commercial resale and requires the appropriate @UCC_Official authorisation. Installing the router at work does not change the nature of the activity. There’s a difference between an employer providing Wi-Fi for staff to do their work and someone inviting paying customers to use a connection. Genuine sharing of the subscription bill may call for a different assessment; labelling a charge a “contribution” doesn’t automatically settle the question. Buying MTN WakaNet gives you subscriber access under the package terms, but it does not automatically transfer MTN’s licence or authorise you to operate a separate public internet business. The practical next step is to ask MTN whether the specific package allows the intended resale, then confirm with @UCC_Official which authorisation or approved operating arrangement applies. MTN’s commercial permission and @UCC_Official's regulatory authorisation are separate matters. I can see why someone might view this as a way to bring in extra income. Before investing more, you need clear guidance, not uncertainty, about whether your business is lawful. #Tulinamwe

That is a fair question, @dickson_duros, especially if an established ISP can offer a compliant arrangement. Forming a new company was one proposed route, not proof that it was the only option. An existing licensed provider’s proposal should also be assessed on its merits. The distinction is between providing you with connectivity and taking responsibility for the service you deliver. A reseller agreement that permits redistribution does not automatically mean the ISP’s regulatory authorisation covers your operation. @UCC_Official and the willing ISP therefore need to clarify whether its licence covers the proposed activities, what role you would perform, who handles customer complaints, reporting, security and other applicable obligations, and what further approval, if any, is required. If an existing provider’s arrangement meets those requirements, the guidance should explain how WiFi Hotspot operators can participate. If it doesn’t, @UCC_Official and stakeholders may need to identify the specific gap. A sales promise alone can’t settle the matter. Your suggestion deserves practical consideration. The goal should be a lawful, affordable structure that preserves viable businesses and clearly explains every requirement it imposes. #Tulinamwe

Thank you for that sir-harden @dickson_duros I understand your point. A neighbourhood hotspot is much smaller than a provider serving an entire region, and its requirements should reflect that scale. But “regional” refers to the geographic scope of an authorisation; it doesn’t necessarily mean the business must serve the entire region. The Public Service Provider licensing categories include capacity resale. Whether that category is appropriate for a particular small operation may require legal interpretation and guidance. More importantly, the absence of proportionate licensing does not mean the underlying law no longer applies. Section 22 of the Uganda Communications Act requires authorisation to provide telecommunications services, while section 78 addresses unlicensed operation. Serving only your community does not, by itself, exempt you. Your strongest argument, then, is that small operators need a clear, affordable, and workable path to compliance, not that no law applies. That concern deserves serious consideration. I believe the best approach is to engage the regulator to explore which existing authorisation fits, what alternatives are legally available, and how the requirements can reflect your actual scale. #Tulinamwe

Good day, sir-harden @dickson_duros YOU’RE RIGHT TO CALL OUT THAT INCONSISTENCY. A reseller agreement and an authorised agency arrangement are not the same thing. A reseller agreement defines the commercial relationship, including whether the ISP allows you to resell its connectivity and under what terms. On its own, it does not grant regulatory permission to operate an independent public internet business. An agency arrangement involves operating on behalf of a licensed provider within a properly authorised structure. Simply calling yourself an agent or receiving a letter from an ISP does not automatically mean your activities are covered. A licensed-company and agent model remains under discussion as a possible way forward. It is still only a proposal, not an approved option available to every hotspot owner. The advice, then, is to explore suitable supply arrangements with ISPs and obtain @UCCGH_Official's confirmation of the regulatory structure before operating under those arrangements. Neither step replaces the other. #Tulinamwe

IF YOUR SAVINGS AND LIVELIHOOD DEPEND ON A HOTSPOT, YOU DESERVE A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE RULES. Internet resale is a licensable activity. The issue is providing the service without the required authorisation and arrangements. WHAT LAW APPLIES? Section 22 of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 requires a Commission-issued licence to provide telecommunications services. Under Section 78, providing or operating a telecommunications system or service without a licence is an offence. Upon conviction, the offender may be fined up to 96 currency points (UGX 1.92 million), plus an additional fine of up to UGX 300,000 for each day or part-day the offence continues after conviction. Courts impose these penalties through proceedings; they do not apply automatically. The Uganda Communications (Licensing) Regulations, 2019 set out the licensing framework. The Public Service Provider licences include capacity resale, with regional and national categories. The appropriate authorisation depends on the operation’s activities and scope. WHY DOES THE ISP’S LICENCE NOT COVER THE BUYER? Because buying a service and independently providing a service are different roles. The ISP is authorised to provide connectivity under its licence. If you then establish your own business, sell vouchers, set prices and serve paying customers, you are engaging in a separate service-provision activity. Your subscription receipt does not transfer the ISP’s licence to that business. Likewise, an ISP’s permission to resell covers the supply agreement; it does not, by itself, establish regulatory authorisation. DOES EVERY HOTSPOT SELLER NEED AN INDIVIDUAL LICENCE? That shouldn’t be assumed. An independent reseller is different from a properly established agent operating under an authorised provider’s arrangement. A licensed company may have hotspot owners as authorised agents. @UCC_Official must confirm whether a specific arrangement meets the requirements; simply calling yourself an “agent” isn’t enough. WHAT ARE THE ALLEGED OFFENCES? The central allegation is the unlicensed provision of telecommunications services. Any equipment, spectrum, installation, or other violations require their own applicable provisions and supporting evidence. A router, captive portal, or shared connection alone does not establish every alleged violation. WHY REQUIRE AUTHORISATION? It identifies who is responsible for the service, the applicable technical standards, how customer complaints are handled, reporting obligations, and lawful security requirements. Equipment type approval and permission to use another owner’s infrastructure are separate requirements that also apply. Operators deserve proportionate requirements and practical guidance. A lawful pathway should preserve affordable access and viable livelihoods while ensuring customers know who to contact when something goes wrong. #Tulinamwe

UGX 1,000 WiFi meets a real need. The challenge is to keep connectivity affordable while making the full costs, responsibilities and customer safeguards clear.

Got old phones, laptops or cables gathering dust? Don't dump them; dispose of them responsibly! Through our ICT E-Waste Collection Project, @UCC_Official partners with others to support safe e-waste collection as part of broader Government waste management efforts. Keep, sort and drop them at @UCC_Official offices or at marked e-waste bins in Kampala, Mbarara, Mbale, Gulu and Masindi. Reuse, recycle, protect our planet! #UCCICTEWasteProject #DigitalUganda

Dear #FreeDrBesigye @mutungilmjz I understand why you ask. To someone trying to earn a living, selling water and selling WiFi may seem like the same thing: buying a service and reselling it for a fee. But that comparison alone does not justify any arrest. The applicable law, the supply agreement and actual activity must be examined. With metered water, higher consumption increases the bill. If more water passes through your tap for resale, NWSC charges for those additional units. Whether resale is permitted is a separate question. With a flat-rate home fibre package, adding paying customers generally does not increase the ISP’s subscription income. You collect additional payments while continuing to pay for the original household package. You will also have changed your role: you are now selling an internet service and competing for customers. That brings responsibilities beyond paying the connection bill, including appropriate authorisation, permitted resale arrangements, applicable taxes, customer protection, equipment type approval and KYC requirements. A home subscription does not automatically satisfy these requirements. The regulatory concern is those responsibilities, not merely whether the ISP earns more. Individual operators’ compliance must be assessed fairly. Your enterprise deserves a viable future. Suitable commercial packages and an authorised operating structure could help preserve affordable access while providing your business with a lawful foundation. That is what further engagement should aim to achieve. #Tulinamwe

Dear #MakingTechWork4U @lumaatic Your concern deserves a serious answer. A student losing access to lessons, a trader losing customers or an entrepreneur losing their savings is a real cost of disruption. Hotspot operators identified an affordability gap. Probably their experience should help shape the solution. To recap, @UCC_Official's duty to protect citizens includes holding established providers accountable. Section 5(1)(e) of the Uganda Communications Act addresses excessive tariffs, while sections 5(1)(j) and (k) address complaints and consumer interests. Licensing enforcement cannot replace those duties. The Commission completed a cost study in January 2026 to inform pricing. These studies assess the costs of delivering a service efficiently, including connectivity, infrastructure, maintenance and statutory charges. They inform price scrutiny, not close the conversation about affordability or excuse poor service. On your office comparison, similar equipment does not imply the same business activity. An office connects employees for internal work. An entrepreneur selling internet across a neighbourhood provides a service to paying public customers. That creates responsibilities for service quality, complaints, customer information (KYC) and lawful supply. Buying connectivity from a licensed ISP does not automatically authorise that separate business. Internal networks must also meet the applicable technical and contractual requirements. Section 22 requires a Commission-issued telecommunications licence. Section 78 makes unlicensed provision an offence, with a court-imposed fine of up to UGX 1.92 million and additional fines of up to UGX 300,000 per day or part-day for continued offending after conviction. These consequences require legal proceedings; they are not automatic. @UCC_Official cannot condone unlicensed operations while a replacement model is under discussion. However, explaining the illegality is only part of its response. Affected businesses need clear, practical guidance. Your proposal for simple, affordable community licensing warrants legal scrutiny. A cheaper licence alone would not address the current model’s gaps in resale arrangements, tax reporting, equipment type approval, security, KYC and customer protection. Those requirements need a structure that small operators can realistically meet. Some discussions have explored licensed companies purchasing suitable capacity, with hotspot owners acting as authorised agents. Operators, UCC, ISPs, URA and other relevant stakeholders should test whether this or another compliant arrangement can preserve affordable access and viable livelihoods. The discussion needs to reflect actual costs, regulatory requirements, clear responsibilities and realistic milestones. Any transition must have a lawful basis; consultation itself does not authorise continued operation. Your call to “regulate the model” offers a constructive starting point. Preserve what works for communities, fix what fails to meet the requirements, and hold large providers accountable too. Success should mean more Ugandans connected affordably and reliably, with a practical, lawful place for small entrepreneurs to serve them. #Tulinamwe

You are right, @DGisubiizo, to draw that boundary. A hotel shouldn't fear losing control of its network just because it buys internet from an ISP. Managing the hotel’s LAN and the internet service supplied to it are different tasks. The hotel’s IT team normally manages guest vouchers, access points, security and how bandwidth is shared internally. A Fair Usage Policy concerns the purchased internet service. Depending on the agreement, it may explain usage thresholds, traffic management and measures to protect other customers on shared infrastructure. These terms do not, by themselves, give an ISP authority to enter or reconfigure the hotel’s LAN. Capacity planning also needs both sides: hotel IT understands guest demand, while the ISP must clearly explain the connection’s capacity, guarantees and restrictions. A voucher system alone establishes neither misuse nor sufficient capacity. Any restriction should have a clear contractual and lawful basis. Customers deserve transparent terms and an explanation when their service is affected, consistent with the @UCC_Official's consumer-protection framework. Usually, an agreement expressly covers guest WiFi, fair-use conditions, and each party’s responsibilities. This protects the hotel’s autonomy while ensuring the service is reliable. #Tulinamwe

Dear Enick Ramas @EnickRamas You are asking a fair question: if UGX 1,000 keeps someone connected all day, why shouldn’t affordable access like that be the goal? It should be. For someone studying, looking for work or supporting a family, that price makes a real difference. Let me explain this by telling you a story. After Uganda’s 1979 upheaval, sugar briefly became cheap because sellers had obtained stocks by looting warehouses in an industrial area, meaning they did not pay the normal purchase costs. Once those stocks ran out, that price could not be sustained. The point of the story is about what supports a price, not an accusation that hotspot owners are looters. A low selling price alone does not establish that another business can sustainably match it while meeting all its costs and obligations. Hotspot owners do pay for connectivity and equipment. However, @UCC_Official's assessment found gaps in the model’s resale arrangements, taxes, regulatory obligations, Equipment Type Approval, and customer safeguards. These missing responsibilities cannot be ignored when comparing prices. And buying a home-use package does not, by itself, authorise commercial public resale. That doesn’t excuse expensive bundles or poor service from licensed providers. @UCC_Official will continue to pursue lower prices and accountability while working with hotspot operators to identify a suitable model for lawful participation. Your UGX 1,000 example illustrates the demand. The challenge is to build a compliant model that can reliably deliver affordable access while preserving viable livelihoods. #Tulinamwe

Dear God Speed @GodSpeedUg I hear your concern. When a small hotspot business supports a family, enforcement can feel like the powerful closing the door on someone trying to survive. You are right that MTN and Airtel have more services and resources. But businesses can compete in internet access without offering the same range of products. When someone chooses between a mobile bundle and paid hotspot access, both providers are serving that customer’s need to get online. Fair competition shouldn’t require a small seller to shoulder every obligation placed on a national network. Instead, requirements should be proportionate, while preserving essential responsibilities for lawful supply, taxes, equipment type approval, and customer protection. Large providers should also be held accountable for poor service, inadequate geographical coverage, and unfair practices. @UCC_Official's assessment found that the current hotspot model could not be licensed as presented. That finding concerns how the business operates; it should not dismiss the value of small entrepreneurs. There are several interesting ideas to explore, including bringing on board a licensed company to purchase capacity, with hotspot owners serving as authorised agents. Stakeholders should test whether this arrangement can distribute costs fairly while preserving affordable access. Ordinary people deserve both protection and opportunity. A workable solution must take their livelihoods as seriously as it does its legal requirements. #Tulinamwe

Dear Citizen of Bamutakudde. @jbahinyoza Using WiFi vouchers does not, by itself, mean a hotel is committing a crime. I understand the concern; hotels need to know whether an everyday guest service could expose them to enforcement. A voucher may simply control access, connection time or the number of devices. The key question is what service the hotel actually provides. WiFi offered as part of a guest’s stay differs from running a separate business selling internet access to the public. However, neither “guests only” nor a separate charge automatically settles the licensing question. The supply agreement and applicable authorisation still matter. @UCC_Official's concern is public internet resale without the required authorisation. Buying from a licensed ISP does not automatically authorise that separate activity. I can’t say that all hotels using vouchers are offending. Hotels should ask their ISP to confirm that their package permits the intended use and seek clarification from @UCC_Official on any authorisation requirements. #Tulinamwe

Good day, TakeIt Crazy @takeit_crazy You’re right to question that interpretation. Simply having routers, a captive portal or antennas does not make a school or company an unlawful hotspot business. If the explanation suggested otherwise, it needed to be clearer. The distinction is between providing connectivity for an institution’s own activities and operating a service that resells internet access to the public. A school connecting learners, a university serving its campus, or a company linking employees and offices uses a network for institutional purposes. A captive portal controls access, and an antenna connects locations. Neither, on its own, proves commercial resale. The WiFi Hotspot model @UCC_Official assessed involves purchasing retail connectivity and reselling public access without the required authorisation or a suitable resale agreement. An ISP’s licence does not automatically cover this separate business. Charging a fee is only one consideration, and calling customers “students” or “members” does not resolve the issue. The actual service, its users, the contractual arrangements, and any applicable authorisation must all be examined. Institutional networks still have equipment, spectrum, and installation requirements where applicable. However, they should not be treated as equivalent to public resale businesses simply because they use similar technology. I understand why clear rules should distinguish different situations without making ordinary school or office Wi-Fi sound criminal. #Tulinamwe

Dear TakeIt Crazy @takeit_crazy When money is tight, unexplained data loss feels like losing money you cannot spare. Asking where your bundle went and why unused data expires is reasonable. @UCC_Official's consumer-protection responsibility includes holding licensed providers to account. On pricing, @UCC_Official has conducted a cost study completed in January 2026. Cost-based pricing examines connectivity, infrastructure, maintenance, taxes and regulatory costs to determine what efficient service delivery should cost. It does not mean that every existing price is fair or beyond scrutiny. On depletion, high-quality videos, automatic updates, backups and shared connections can use substantial data. However, possible explanations are not evidence of what happened to your account. Disputed deductions require usage records and billing checks, especially when a customer says mobile data was switched off. Expiry is separate from consumption: a bundle may reach its validity deadline while some data remains unused. Providers must clearly explain these terms before purchase, but explaining expiry does not establish whether a specific condition is fair. These concerns deserve attention in their own right. However, they do not authorise unlicensed public internet resale. Buying a home-use package does not automatically permit commercial resale of access. @UCC_Official cannot condone unlawful operations, even if they offer relief from high prices. We should therefore look at this twofold: investigate consumer complaints and work with hotspot operators to develop a workable, lawful model. Ugandans deserve affordable internet, transparent charges, and providers we can hold accountable. #Tulinamwe

Dear Mr Kibz @kibz_mich When you pay for data with money meant for food or transport and then watch it disappear, frustration is understandable. You deserve answers, not a lecture. Established operators have left an affordability gap, and hotspot vendors responded to a real need. But calls for providers to cut prices must be supported by evidence of their costs. @UCC_Official completed a cost study in January 2026 to guide pricing across the sector. Cost-based pricing considers the costs of delivering internet, including connectivity, infrastructure, maintenance, taxes and regulatory fees. It helps ensure services are sustainable and affordable; it doesn’t give operators a blank cheque to charge whatever they want. The drop in the average daily price of a 1GB bundle, from about UGX 5,200 in 2020 to UGX 2,000 in 2026, marks progress. But it does not answer whether prices are affordable today or whether disputed data deductions are justified. Transaction charges should also be examined separately. However, reselling a home-use connection for commercial purposes constitutes providing telecommunications services. The supplier’s licence does not automatically cover that separate business. Section 22 of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 requires a licence from the Commission. Under Section 78, providing or operating a telecommunications system or service without a licence is an offence. @UCC_Official cannot condone this illegality, even when the business meets an urgent need. The answer must address both problems: stronger accountability for established providers and a workable, lawful path for hotspot entrepreneurs. Suitable resale agreements and the proposed licensed-company and authorised-agent model warrant practical examination. Citizens need affordable connections, while small businesses need clear rules they can realistically meet. #Tulinamwe

Dear Kirya Ug @kirya_ug When a bundle bought with hard-earned money disappears sooner than expected, the frustration is real. You deserve clear usage records, an explanation, and a proper investigation when the numbers don't add up. Data depletion is a substantial consumer-protection issue that warrants its own focused discussion. But using it to justify unlicensed hotspot operations diverts us from the legal question. A complaint against one provider does not authorise another to operate outside the law. Section 22 of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 requires a licence from the Commission to provide telecommunications services. Section 78 makes it an offence to provide or operate a telecommunications system or service without a licence. An ISP subscription does not transfer the supplier’s licence to a reseller. @UCC_Official must address complaints against licensed providers while enforcing those requirements. Neither responsibility cancels the other out. The way forward is to investigate disputed data consumption and to work with hotspot operators to develop a compliant, affordable model. Citizens deserve answers about their bundles, and entrepreneurs/innovators deserve clear guidance on lawful participation. #Tulinamwe

Struggling to earn a living while fearing that public money is being misused can make compliance feel unfair. Surely, citizens deserve accountability for every shilling of tax. But that concern does not justify providing public internet access without a licence. The legal dilemma is that @UCC_Official must enforce licensing requirements while recognising the livelihoods at stake; hardship cannot be treated as permission to break the law. The way forward is to demand accountable government while engaging with @UCC_Official on a workable, affordable operating model. Protecting livelihoods and respecting the law should both guide that discussion.

Dear shuga @Mukene0 I understand the distress; equipment can represent someone’s savings and livelihood. Those affected deserve a clear explanation. @UCC_Official found that the current hotspot model could not be licensed as presented because it failed to meet requirements covering resale agreements, taxes, customer protection, traceability and equipment approval. Further engagement is needed to develop a workable solution. But that finding alone does not establish these businesses’ licensing status. Business registration or an ISP subscription is different from @UCC_Official authorisation for public resale. They should submit their case to @UCC_Official for document verification and/or an explanation of who authorised the removals, if the operations were appropriately authorised. #Tulinamwe