Militarising the Tower Network: Governance, Liability, and Shareholder Questions

Introduction: The Governance Blind Spot

Militarising telecom towers — adding software-defined radios (SDRs), edge AI, and spectrum monitoring — is a powerful idea.But it is not just a technology or business model decision.It is a governance decision.

Boards must consider who controls the data, who is liable for false positives or missed detections, and how neutrality is preserved in a multi-tenant environment.

Failure to get this right could result in shareholder lawsuits, regulatory investigations, or public backlash — even if the technical execution is flawless.

The Dual-Use Dilemma

Telecom towers have traditionally been neutral infrastructure. They serve multiple MNOs, broadcasters, and private users without favouring one over the other. Militarising them introduces several dilemmas:

• Sovereignty: If a TowerCo operates in multiple countries, which nation’s government gets priority during a crisis?

• Neutrality: If a tower hosts military sensors, does that make it a legitimate target under the laws of armed conflict?

• Commercial Fairness: How to reassure MNO tenants that their network data or security posture is not compromised?

Boards must weigh these questions before committing to Defence-as-a-Service (DaaS) at scale.

Data Governance: Who Owns the Threat Intelligence?

The data generated by 18,000 SDR-enabled towers is potentially strategically sensitive:

• Spectrum anomaly logs may reveal adversary testing patterns.

• Drone telemetry detection could show where defence systems are blind.

• Cyber intrusion metadata might contain customer identifiers.

Key governance questions include:

• Ownership: Does the TowerCo own the data, or does it automatically belong to the state?

• Access Control: Who can query it — government agencies, MNOs, private enterprises?

• Retention & Audit: How long is data stored, and who is responsible for compliance with GDPR or national equivalents?

Liability and Insurance Considerations

Boards must also examine liability exposure:

• False Positives: If a tower triggers a false alarm leading to unnecessary military mobilisation, who bears the cost?

• Missed Detection: If an attack occurs and the tower network failed to spot it, could the TowerCo be sued?

• Physical Security: Towers hosting military equipment may become targets — increasing operational risk and requiring enhanced insurance cover.

This is not just a legal issue but a balance-sheet issue.Directors must ensure that liability caps, indemnities, and insurance coverage are negotiated upfront.

Stakeholder Management

Militarising the tower network will affect a wide range of stakeholders:

• Shareholders: Need clarity on ROI, risk mitigation, and long-term value impact.

• Governments: Need assurances about sovereignty, data integrity, and rapid response protocols.

• Tenants: Must be convinced that services will remain neutral, reliable, and non-intrusive.

• Public: Will demand transparency — without compromising security — about how their data is protected.

Failure to manage these relationships could derail the project before it even starts.

ESG and Reputation Implications

Defence initiatives can be polarising.Some investors will see national resilience as an ESG-positive outcome (especially under the “Governance” pillar). Others may view militarisation as reputational risk.

Boards should prepare clear messaging:

• Frame the initiative as protection of civilian infrastructure rather than militarisation.

• Emphasise privacy-by-design principles to reassure regulators and the public.

• Publish an annual Resilience & Security Report as part of ESG disclosures.

Board Framework for Decision-Making

Bridge Connect recommends a structured framework for boards considering tower militarisation:

1. Materiality Assessment: Quantify potential revenue, capex, and risk exposure.

2. Legal Opinion: Obtain counsel on liability, international humanitarian law, and regulatory obligations.

3. Stakeholder Map: Identify all affected parties and develop engagement plans.

4. Risk Transfer: Negotiate indemnities, sovereign guarantees, and insurance solutions.

5. Governance Charter: Establish oversight committee, reporting lines, and data governance policy.

This approach turns a potentially risky decision into a controlled, board-led strategy.

Board Conclusion: Governance Is the Enabler

Militarising the tower network is inevitable in a world of hybrid warfare — but it must be done right.

Boards should see governance not as a blocker but as an enabler:

• The stronger the data governance and liability framework,

• The more attractive the proposition becomes to governments, investors, and MNOs.

The real risk is not in militarising towers — it is in failing to prepare the governance frameworks first, leaving directors exposed.

“Boards must answer: Who owns the data, who carries the risk, and who decides in a crisis?”