ICASA’s affordability inquiry looks beyond the price of a data bundle

South Africa’s planned telecom affordability inquiry asks whether people can afford voice and internet services—not simply whether a network reaches them. It also examines possible regulatory or market interventions. It is not an announcement of cheaper bundles or a new price cap. ICASA’s inquiry page sets out that purpose.

As of 26 October 2026, the important distinction is between the withdrawal of the original inquiry notice and ICASA’s continuing intention to investigate affordability. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) has published inquiry materials, but its subsequent withdrawal statement means readers should not assume the original participation timetable remains current. ICASA’s 1 October statement says the affordability notice will be republished with a draft questionnaire.

What happened to the inquiry notice?

The sequence matters because “withdrawn” does not, here, mean ICASA has abandoned the affordability question:

• 4 September 2026: ICASA published its original intention to conduct the inquiry, as Notice 4130 in Government Gazette 55299.
• 30 September: Government Gazette 55476 withdrew that original notice and included a replacement affordability inquiry text. ICASA’s same-day update said it still intended to conduct the inquiry.
• 1 October: ICASA said withdrawal would allow it to address administrative and procedural matters. It said the affordability notice would be republished together with the draft questionnaire for public comment, and previous contributors would be able to resubmit or expand their comments.

These steps are documented in the 30 September Gazette, the same-day regulatory update and the 1 October statement.

For anyone planning a submission, check the latest notice and questionnaire on ICASA’s affordability inquiry page, rather than calculate a deadline from the withdrawn September launch. As of 26 October, that page lists materials dated 30 September; their presence alone does not resolve the later statement’s promise of republication.

What does “affordable” mean here?

ICASA identifies persistent affordability concerns particularly affecting low-income households, rural communities, young people and informal-sector workers. Its September inquiry text covers voice and broadband services and proposes both provider information and a consumer survey. That pairs the supply-side question—how services are priced—with the demand-side question—what people can afford to use. Source: September inquiry text.

The provider questionnaire posted by ICASA makes that broader approach concrete. It asks about:

• Mobile bundle prices, sizes, validity periods, rollover and transfer rules.
• Fixed broadband speeds, monthly prices, data allocations and fair usage policies.
• Products aimed at low-income users and the use of short-validity bundles.
• Airtime or data advances, permanent disconnections for non-payment and affordability indicators.
• Rural delivery costs and possible interventions such as infrastructure sharing or rural connectivity subsidies.

Read these as questions ICASA proposes to investigate, not findings or a confirmed submission timetable. The questionnaire also asks providers what share of household income should count as affordable telecom spending. The percentage choices in that question are not an adopted affordability threshold. They are views ICASA is seeking.

Why price per gigabyte is not enough

Consider a hypothetical prepaid bundle: R60 buys 3 gigabytes (GB), valid for seven days. Its advertised unit price is R20 per GB. If a customer uses only 1 GB before the rest expires, with no rollover available in this example, they have spent R60 per GB actually used—not R20.

The customer also needed R60 upfront. A larger bundle could have a lower unit price but still be beyond their immediate budget. To compare offers, look at the payment required today, how much data you can use during the validity period, and which services or times the allowance covers—not just the headline rand-per-GB figure.

How the network enters the affordability question

The questionnaire does not stop at retail tariffs. It asks providers to rank spectrum, network deployment, fibre backhaul, energy, site security, taxes and international bandwidth as cost drivers. It separately asks about the cost of carrying an additional GB on fourth-generation (4G), fifth-generation (5G) and fixed broadband networks. Source: provider questionnaire.

Backhaul is the connection carrying traffic from a cell site towards the operator’s core network; our backhaul explainer follows that part of the journey. For this inquiry, the relevant question is how such infrastructure costs relate to the price customers pay.

Importantly, a questionnaire asking whether rural service delivery costs more is not a finding that it does—or that a particular retail premium is justified. Provider responses, consumer evidence and ICASA’s analysis are needed before those conclusions can be drawn.

What customers should watch next

The September inquiry text proposes provider questionnaires and a consumer survey, followed by a discussion document for public comment, possible hearings and a findings document. It specifies 45 working days for comments on the discussion document and publication of a summary of findings within 90 days of the inquiry’s conclusion. These describe the proposed process, not current participation deadlines or a promised date for lower bills; check the republished notice for the operative arrangements. Source: September inquiry text.

The next useful milestones are a confirmed participation notice, consumer-survey details and the discussion document. If you want to contribute, keep dated bundle receipts or bills, validity terms, unused balances at expiry and examples of spending you had to forgo. Those records can explain an affordability problem more clearly than a price comparison alone.

For changes specifically to bundle handling and billing safeguards, see our separate guide to ICASA’s 2026 End-User Service Charter amendments. The affordability inquiry should not be treated as a substitute for those rules—or as a reason to assume your current tariff has changed.