SCOM Packages 2026: The Complete Guide to Internet, Call, and SIM Bundles in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir

SCOM stands for the Special Communications Organization, a state-run telecom provider that is the sole source of 3G and 4G mobile services across Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K). Launched in 2004, SCOM made history by bringing the first 4G network to these mountainous regions, covering 450 cities and villages where private operators like Jazz, Zong, Ufone, and Telenor have little or no presence.

For residents, SCOM is not a choice. It is the only signal available. For tourists, trekkers, and anyone traveling through the region, a SCOM SIM is essential. The network’s monopoly is a structural reality shaped by geography, policy, and decades of underinvestment in telecom infrastructure across Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

That monopoly shapes everything — from what you pay to how reliable your connection is.

SCOM offers internet bundles across daily, weekly, and monthly cycles. Activation is done through USSD codes, primarily via *111#.

SCOM offers dedicated call bundles and hybrid packages that combine minutes, SMS, and data.

On paper, SCOM’s prices look reasonable. A monthly package with 25 GB for Rs. 799 is cheaper than what many private operators charge in mainland Pakistan. But the reality on the ground is more complicated.

A Reddit user from AJK described their experience in stark terms: 15 Mbps fixed internet costs Rs. 3,400 per month with a 700 GB cap, while 100 Mbps costs Rs. 31,700 — plus a Rs. 40,000 “security fee” with no clear explanation.

The user noted that in the US, 100 Mbps starts at roughly $30 (Rs. 8,500) with unlimited data and no surprise charges.

The complaint is not unique. Because SCOM is the only provider in the region, there is no competitive pressure to lower prices or improve service. Users cannot switch to another operator. They cannot negotiate. They pay what SCOM charges, or they go without.

This is a classic monopoly dynamic, and it disproportionately affects a region already struggling with economic challenges. For students relying on internet access for online classes, for small businesses trying to operate digitally, and for families sharing a single connection across multiple devices, the cost is a real burden.

SCOM’s strength is coverage. Its network reaches 450 cities and villages across Gilgit-Baltistan and AJK, including areas where no other operator has a signal.

For a region defined by mountainous terrain and scattered settlements, that coverage is genuinely valuable. But coverage does not equal quality. Signal strength varies dramatically with terrain and weather. In remote valleys, users report dropped calls, slow data speeds, and intermittent connectivity. The “night data” included in many packages is partly a concession to network congestion — speeds are often better between 1 AM and 9 AM when fewer people are online.

For tourists and short-term visitors, SCOM’s daily and weekly packages offer flexibility. But for long-term residents, the lack of alternatives means accepting whatever service quality is available.

The telecom gap in Pakistan-administered Kashmir is not just an inconvenience. It is a structural disadvantage.

In India-administered Kashmir, private operators compete aggressively. Jio, Airtel, and BSNL offer 4G and now 5G services across the valley. Prices are lower. Data allowances are higher. The market, however imperfect, creates pressure for improvement.

In Gilgit-Baltistan and AJK, that pressure does not exist. SCOM’s monopoly is a policy choice — the result of licensing decisions that have kept private operators out of the region. Whether that is justified on security grounds, commercial grounds, or bureaucratic inertia, the effect is the same: residents pay more for less.

The consequences extend beyond individual frustration. Poor connectivity limits economic development. It restricts access to online education and telemedicine. It makes it harder for local businesses to reach national and international markets. And it reinforces the sense, common across both sides of the Line of Control, that Kashmir’s peripherality is taken for granted by the powers that govern it.