If you watch Netflix on your phone, you pay for the Netflix subscription and the data that carries it. The same goes for a YouTube video, minus the subscription for Premium if you use the free version. So when South Africa’s network operators argue that large online platforms should also help pay for the networks carrying all that traffic, I understand why that idea gets a lot of attention. I get that the towers, fibre and upgrades have to be paid for somehow.
But there is also a question I want answered before we start calling this a fair deal and that is, what does the customer get back? Will our data become cheaper? Will we get better coverage in remote areas? Or will this be yet another payment flowing to companies that already charge us to connect?
ICASA’s notice in the Government Gazette of 4 September starts a market inquiry into the effect of over-the-top, or OTT, services on licensed telecommunications, broadcasting and postal operators. OTT is the industry’s term for services delivered over the internet instead of through a traditional phone or TV operator. Think WhatsApp calls instead of a normal voice call, or Netflix instead of a conventional TV subscription.
Now let’s be very clear about what this is, because the notice does not say ICASA has decided that WhatsApp, Netflix or YouTube should pay. It does not set a fee, identify any specific companies that should pay, or make a promise of cheaper data for South Africans. It has only started a process for gathering evidence and should not be made to sound like a bill is already on its way to Big Tech.
What ICASA is actually investigating
The regulator says it wants to understand the effect these services have on the companies it licenses and on South Africa’s regulatory framework, which is broader than just the question of who pays for network infrastructure. Streaming competes for viewers with broadcasters while WhatsApp Calls and messaging have changed how people use conventional voice and SMS services. Those are legitimate changes to examine, but they do not all lead to the same policy answer.
ICASA has set out four stages for their investigation. First come a questionnaire, clarification questions and written responses. A discussion document will then go out for public comment and ICASA may hold hearings before publishing a summary of its findings. The notice gives stakeholders 45 working days to respond to the questionnaire after its briefing note is published, and another 45 working days to comment on the later discussion document. All of this will take time.
There is another detail that could easily get lost in all the reporting. In the same Gazette, ICASA also launched a separate inquiry into the affordability of telecommunications services. This looks explicitly at structural costs and the effect of telecom bills on households. If a proposal from the OTT inquiry claims it will help ordinary South Africans, the affordability inquiry will say show us how, and show us the evidence. These two processes should not be confused, but the consumer question belongs in both.
Why the networks want Big Tech at the table
The “fair share” argument comes from the network side of the industry. The Association of Comms and Technology, which represents major South African operators, has argued that large platforms depend on expensive network infrastructure and should contribute to building and upgrading it. Its chief executive told Reuters in 2024 that OTT companies should contribute to network upgrades and construction.
It is a serious argument as more people streaming higher-resolution video means networks need enough capacity to cope and that costs huge amounts of capital.
Yet the money question has two sides. We pay an internet provider for access, and the services we use pay their own costs to connect to the internet. The Internet Society makes the point that traffic is usually requested by users: When I press play; the platform sends what I asked for and calling all of that traffic a cost imposed by the platform, with no account of the customer’s existing payment, totally ignores half of the transaction.
Also, how would it be decided which companies would pay, how the money would be used and if network operators would commit to verifiable coverage or price improvements? What happens to a smaller South African streaming or software business that cannot negotiate like Netflix?
Could this make your internet cheaper?
Possibly, but nobody has demonstrated that outcome here. Payments from OTT providers to a network operator could certainly support investment, but it would more likely become another cost passed on to subscribers, or an arrangement with no clear benefit for people buying data that’s already unaffordable for many. I would be wary of anyone promising a lower mobile bill before the mechanism and obligations are even on the table.
I am open to a plain answer from either side. Networks should be able to show the investment gap and explain why existing data and connectivity revenue cannot cover it. OTT platforms should explain their own network investments and what a fee would mean for users and local competitors. ICASA should hear from consumers as well as the biggest companies in the room.
For now, your WhatsApp calls and Netflix streams are not facing a new ICASA charge. The important development is that the regulator has started asking how online platforms affect licensed operators, while a separate process asks whether South Africans can afford the services they already buy. If “fair share” becomes a concrete proposal, its first public test should be simple: show us the benefit on our side of the screen.
