Major telecommunications operators in South Africa are insisting that municipalities bear financial responsibility, including demands for compensation, if they delay the processing of applications for laying communication lines. The Association of Communications and Technology (ACT) stated this during public hearings by Icasa regarding the fast deployment regulations project in Midrand on Monday.
ACT, representing six of the country's largest network operators, proposed introducing a direct provision into the regulation allowing licensees to claim damages from the Icasa complaints and compliance committee if the delay is caused by the municipality. Furthermore, penalties are proposed for municipalities failing to adhere to established document processing deadlines.
This proposal was part of a five-point reform package presented by the industry organization at the hearings held at the Protea Hotel Marriott in Midrand on Monday and Tuesday. These hearings follow written comments on the draft regulations published on April 10, which showed near-unanimous industry criticism: the rules regulate licensees wishing to build but ignore the municipal permitting bottleneck that is actually hindering deployment.
The draft regulations aim to implement Chapter 4 of the Electronic Communications Act, creating a unified national framework for network deployment covering permits, land access, compensation, dispute resolution, and a national infrastructure GIS database. However, ACT stated at the hearings that without mandatory requirements for municipalities, these regulations do not fulfill Icasa's direct mandate under the Electronic Communications Act, and the goal of rapid deployment is unattainable.
A central element of ACT's proposal is the proposed approval mechanism. Municipalities must acknowledge a right-of-way application within five days and process it within a fixed 30 working days, providing written justification in case of refusal. If a decision is not made within the timeframe, it is deemed approved. The fee for the right of way should be limited to reasonable direct administrative costs for processing the application, ending the practice the association describes as using fees as a revenue source.
According to ACT's written submission, operators wait from six to twelve months for a right-of-way in some metropolitan areas, with costs ranging from R8,000 to 'hundreds of thousands of rand' per application, including arbitrary annual 'maintenance fees' for which no services are provided. In its own memorandum, Icasa points to inconsistent municipal right-of-way processes as the main recurring barrier to deployment.
ACT argued that this is not a regulatory novelty, as the EU Gigabit Infrastructure Act already provides for mandatory permit issuance timelines, tacit approval when authorities fail to meet deadlines, compensation for operators affected by delays, and limiting permit fees to administrative costs. South Africa, according to ACT, is simply adopting established international practice, not inventing it.
ACT also pointed out a structural flaw in the project's main GIS database component: a significant portion of South Africa's passive infrastructure—masts, towers, ducts, and poles—belongs to tower operators and passive infrastructure providers who are not always licensees and are therefore completely excluded from regulation. ACT noted that the database will present an incomplete picture of existing assets, and co-location and infrastructure sharing provisions will be undermined because the owners of the divisible infrastructure are outside the regulatory framework.
Regarding the database itself, ACT reiterated security concerns that dominated the written submissions: centralizing geo-referenced data on all fiber optic routes, ducts, towers, and base stations creates a serious national security risk in a country where infrastructure theft and sabotage are well-documented. ACT demands multi-level access control so that Icasa acts as the custodian within official data security policy, as well as extending the six-month implementation period to 12 months with phased rollout.
Other proposals include creating a single national digital platform for submitting and tracking right-of-way applications across all 257 South African municipalities; exemption for minor works requiring only five to seven working days' notice for aerial fiber optic connections and short duct extensions; requiring all new residential developments and substantially renovated buildings to include fiber-ready passive infrastructure; and introducing a progressive penalty system instead of a maximum fixed fine of R1 million, which, according to ACT, does not differentiate between a licensee that deliberately refuses to provide GIS data and one with a technical formatting error.
ACT also reiterated a warning about 'regulatory misalignment,' noting that the project appears to have been developed only considering the 2023 fast deployment policy direction, without accounting for Minister of Communications Solly Malatsi's 2026 policy draft, which mandates standardized municipal bylaws and is undergoing a parallel consultation process.
Telkom, Huawei, CAP, Rain, and the City of Cape Town—the only municipality on the schedule, and thus the only government voice in the industry's center of complaints—also spoke on Monday. Hearings continue on Tuesday with presentations from Digital Council Africa and the Internet Service Providers Association, MTN, Wireless Access Providers Association, Vodacom, and DigiV8. Notably, Maziv, the parent company of fiber operators Vumatel and Dark Fibre Africa, is absent from the schedule despite having submitted written comments on the draft regulations.
Major telecommunications operators in South Africa are preparing for public hearings in Midrand on Monday and Tuesday. They have expressed near-unanimous criticism of the regulator Icasa's draft rules, which aim to accelerate broadband deployment, but the operators warn that they could lead to the opposite result.
The draft rules, published on April 10, aim to create a unified system for network deployment covering permits, land access, compensation, and dispute resolution. However, in written submissions posted on the Icasa website, there is a complaint: the rules regulate licensees who want to build but ignore the municipal permitting bottleneck (wayleave bottleneck), which is actually slowing down the deployment process.
The Association of Communications and Technology (ACT), representing six major operators, considers the lack of mandatory response times from municipalities and a presumed approval mechanism as the 'most significant gap' in the draft, calling it 'the main systemic failure that the regulatory framework was supposed to eliminate.' In its document, signed by ACT CEO Nomvuso Bathi, it is pointed out that operators spend six to twelve months connecting corporate clients in some metropolises, with wayleave costs ranging from R8,000 to hundreds of thousands of rand, including 'arbitrary annual maintenance fees for services not provided.'
Vodacom makes a similar accusation, arguing that the draft 'imposes increased procedural, reporting, and compliance obligations on licensees while the core problems remain largely unresolved.' The Internet Service Providers' Association (Ispa) believes that the new rules 'will rather slow down deployment by imposing additional obligations on licensees.'
Both ACT and Vodacom propose adopting the model used in the EU under the Gigabit Infrastructure Act: mandatory four-month permit acquisition timelines and automatic approval if authorities fail to comply. ACT also insists on importing the principle of price capping for fees from the EU, as well as a 30 working day wayleave standard.
The submitted documents confirm early industry warnings regarding the national infrastructure base, reported by TechCentral in April. Regulation 7 requires every licensee to provide geo-referenced GIS data on fiber optic routes, ducts, poles, towers, and base stations, as well as service availability data at the address level and, most controversially, future deployment plans, under threat of a fine of up to R1 million.
Telkom's submission, signed by Head of Legal and Regulatory Affairs Nozifo Mngomezulu, warns that this database 'compromises the security of the Telkom network if it is made publicly available, as mafia-related construction, anarchists, and spies could misuse it.'
ACT raises national security concerns, citing Icasa's own reports on infrastructure theft and vandalism. Ispa states that it is 'unreasonable to expect licensees to provide commercially sensitive information' without knowing who will have access to it and under what guarantees. Furthermore, Ispa argues that GIS mapping falls entirely outside Section 21 of the Electronic Communications Act and should be considered in a separate document.
The complaint is almost universal: the draft rules do not specify who has the right to access the data, for what purposes, or with what protections. The six-month implementation period is criticized as unrealistic—Telkom calls it 'absolutely unrealistic,' and ACT demands an extension to 12 months—while the R1 million fine is condemned as disproportionate.
Telkom goes further regarding the process, arguing that the rules should be suspended entirely. The company pointed to the Bill amending the Communications Act—whose proposed Section 21A would grant the Minister of Co-operative Governance the power to impose mandatory rules on municipalities—as well as the Minister of Communications Solly Malatsi's fast deployment policy draft, published in March and still unresolved. Telkom believes that finalizing Icasa's rules before these processes are complete risks cementing a system aimed in the wrong direction: Icasa's jurisdiction extends to licensees, not to the municipalities where the real friction lies. According to Telkom, standard co-management wayleave provisions were adopted by only four of the municipalities published in 2023.
ACT questions why Icasa published the draft before the completion of the ministerial policy process, warning of a 'regulatory divergence,' while Ispa demands that Icasa publicly state how the political direction will affect completion.
Not all aspects are disputed. ACT considers the concept of GIS mapping 'significant and commendable' in principle, Ispa members support broadband mapping, and structured dispute resolution and infrastructure lifecycle rules enjoy broad support. The main debate revolves around the sequence of actions and protective measures.
Vodacom argues that the database should only be developed after solving the bottleneck in approval processes, and compensation to landowners should be limited to proven loss, not recurring 'lease-type' payments. Telkom insists that trench sharing and joint construction agreements remain voluntary, warning against 'rent-seeking behaviour' by parties holding wayleave rights.
Oral hearings will take place at the Protea Hotel Marriott in Midrand.
