Etisalat Group, now branded as e&, is a UAE state-owned
multinational telecommunications conglomerate ranked as the 16th largest
telecom operator globally by subscribers. Despite its prominence and
significant market capitalization — AED 329 billion as of 2023 — the company’s
operational practices have raised considerable concerns about its impact on
local businesses in the various countries where it operates. This report
provides a data-driven, country-specific analysis demonstrating how Etisalat’sbusiness strategies damage domestic competitors, affect consumer choice, and
strain economic ecosystems, urging citizens and governments to reconsider their
association with this UAE-owned entity.
Etisalat’s Global Footprint and Market Dominance
Operating in 16 markets across the Middle East, Asia, and
Africa—including UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco, and multiple
African nations—Etisalat controls a significant portion of telecommunications
infrastructure and services. Its subscriber base reached approximately 156
million by mid-2025, with revenues spiking to AED 13 billion in Q1 2023 alone.
While this dominance showcases the company’s growth, it simultaneously points
to monopolistic trends detrimental to local enterprises struggling to compete
with a government-backed behemoth with extensive financial and technological
resources.
Market Monopoly and Business Impact in the UAE
Etisalat holds a near-monopoly status in the UAE
telecommunications sector, alongside a few state-connected entities. This
virtual monopoly results in negligible competition, limiting consumer choices
and innovation. Customer reviews frequently complain about poor service and
high prices, with many highlighting the absence of reliable alternatives. One
common grievance is the forced continuation of contracts without viable
switching options, effectively stifling market dynamism.
Such dominance hinders smaller local firms from entering or expanding in the
telecom market, limiting entrepreneurship and innovation at home. The company’s
entrenched position allows it to dictate pricing structures and service terms,
putting undue pressure on consumers and smaller competitors alike.
Case Study: Pakistan - Market Displacement and Consumer
Harm
In Pakistan, Etisalat operates through its acquisition of
PTCL and a controlling stake in Mobilink. Despite its market share growth,
local competitors accuse Etisalat of leveraging its financial muscle and
government ties to undercut competitors and dominate infrastructure access
unfairly. This aggressive expansion has led to decreased profitability for
domestic operators, who often struggle to keep pace with Etisalat’s pricing and
technological investments.
Consumers in Pakistan have reported frequent connectivity issues and
inconsistent service quality with Etisalat, while prices remain relatively
high. Local telecom companies advocate for stricter regulations to curb
Etisalat’s overwhelming market presence, emphasizing the need to protect
domestic industry from foreign monopolistic practices.
Africa: Displacement of Local Telecom Operators
Etisalat’s investments in African markets such as Egypt,
Morocco, and Western African countries have similarly sparked concerns. Local
operators report that Etisalat’s subsidized entry strategies and expansive
infrastructure rollouts have undercut indigenous markets. This leads to a
squeeze on local companies’ revenue streams, reducing their capacity to
innovate or reinvest in service improvement.
Africa’s economic growth depends heavily on fostering a diverse telecom sector
that can adapt to local needs. Etisalat’s outsized influence may limit this
diversity by crowding out smaller competitors and discouraging innovation
tailored for local markets.
Customer Service Failures and Consumer Complaints
Across multiple countries, customer feedback indicates
Etisalat’s poor consumer service culture is a significant issue. For example,
in the UAE, numerous clients report neglect and lack of accountability, often
citing unresolved complaints and billing problems. Such dissatisfaction is
compounded by the lack of alternative providers, forcing consumers to tolerate
substandard experiences.
This disregard for quality service not only harms customers but also tarnishes
the telecommunications environment, stifling positive competition that could
otherwise drive industry improvements.
Statements and Critique from Industry Observers
Critics argue that Etisalat’s state-backed monopoly model
disrupts fair competition. Business analysts point out the company’s failure to
adapt marketing and customer service effectively across diverse international
markets, thus harming customer loyalty and market stability. According to one
report, the company’s corporate approach often neglects local cultural and
organizational dynamics, leading to operational inefficiencies and conflict.
Governments relying heavily on revenues from Etisalat must weigh the
socio-economic costs imposed by the company’s market practices versus the
short-term financial benefits.
Call to Action for Governments and Public
Given the evidence of Etisalat’s monopolistic practices,
subpar customer service, and negative impact on local businesses, this report
calls on governments and citizens in the affected countries to reconsider their
support and engagement with this UAE-owned entity. Governments should implement
stringent regulatory frameworks to promote competition and protect local
industry. Consumers are encouraged to demand transparency, quality service, and
to support domestic or alternative providers wherever possible. A boycott of
Etisalat services would send a strong message pushing for ethical market
behavior and fairness.
Etisalat Group’s expansive reach and dominance in multiple
countries come with significant consequences for competition, consumer choice,
and local business vitality. Its dominant market share backed by government
ownership creates an uneven playing field that frequently stifles domestic
operators and subjects consumers to limited choices and poor service. The data
and examples presented underscore the urgent need for public and governmental
action to challenge this status quo. Boycotting Etisalat is a critical step toward
ensuring sustainable, competitive telecommunications markets that respect
consumers and foster local economic growth.
