Most of us don’t think much about the infrastructure behind the internet.
We open WhatsApp, stream Netflix, watch YouTube, scroll Instagram and go about our day. The services feel separate from the networks that carry them.
But someone has to build, maintain and pay for those networks.
That is becoming a bigger question in South Africa, where the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) is examining both the impact of over-the-top (OTT) services on the traditional communications market and the affordability of telecommunications services.
They are two separate inquiries, but together they highlight an increasingly difficult question:
Who should pay for the digital world we now take for granted?
The Internet Has Changed. The Rules Haven’t Necessarily Kept Up.
Netflix is not a television channel in the traditional sense.
WhatsApp is not an SMS service.
YouTube is not a conventional broadcaster.
Yet all three compete for our attention, rely on telecommunications networks and have changed how South Africans consume media and communicate.
That has created an awkward situation for regulators.
Traditional broadcasters and telecoms companies operate within established regulatory frameworks, while global digital platforms have largely grown outside the structures designed for those older industries.
ICASA’s planned inquiry into OTT services is intended to examine how these services are affecting licensed players across telecommunications, broadcasting and postal services, and whether the existing regulatory framework remains appropriate.
The issue is therefore bigger than Netflix or WhatsApp.
It is about whether regulation designed for an older media landscape still makes sense in a world where the boundaries between media, communications and technology have largely disappeared.
And Then There is the Network Itself
There is an argument happening underneath all of this.
Telecommunications companies invest heavily in the infrastructure that allows people to stream video, send messages, make calls and use the internet.
At the same time, some of the biggest drivers of data traffic are global platforms such as Netflix, YouTube and Meta’s services.
This has led to the so-called “Fair Share” debate, where network operators argue that major platforms should contribute more towards the infrastructure their services rely on.
It is a fairly straightforward argument:
If a handful of companies generate enormous amounts of internet traffic, should the companies carrying that traffic be expected to fund all of the infrastructure themselves?
The counterargument is equally straightforward.
Consumers already pay network operators for connectivity, while digital platforms pay for their own services and data infrastructure. Making platforms pay again could ultimately increase costs or discourage investment.
ICASA’s inquiry gives South Africa an opportunity to examine that argument properly rather than simply taking one industry’s position at face value.
And it is important to stress that ICASA has not announced a new Netflix tax or WhatsApp charge.
An inquiry is an investigation into the market, not a decision that a particular company will be charged more.
But What About the Person Paying for All of This?
This is where the second ICASA inquiry becomes particularly relevant.
While regulators are looking at the impact of digital platforms on the market, they are also examining whether telecommunications services are affordable.
That matters because all of these digital services depend on connectivity.
A Netflix subscription is relatively easy to understand. Your mobile data or fibre bill is another matter.
For many people, connectivity has become a basic part of everyday life. It is how we work, bank, study, shop, communicate and access entertainment.
So if the cost of staying connected rises, access to the digital economy becomes more difficult.
That creates a tension at the centre of the debate.
Network operators need enough revenue to continue investing in better infrastructure.
Digital platforms want consumers to use their services without additional costs making those services less attractive.
And consumers want reliable, fast internet without paying increasingly large amounts for it.
Somewhere in the middle, the regulator has to work out how the system should function.
We Are Not Really Buying “Internet” Anymore
There is another reason this conversation matters.
The internet used to feel like a product in itself.
You bought an internet connection, and then decided what to do with it.
Now, people often experience the internet through individual platforms.
You might spend an evening entirely inside Netflix. A large part of your communication might happen through WhatsApp. Your entertainment could be YouTube and TikTok. Your shopping decisions might begin on Instagram.
The infrastructure has become almost invisible.
The platforms are what we actually experience.
That makes it easy to forget that all of those services are competing for the same underlying capacity.
As our reliance on digital services increases, the question of who should fund that capacity becomes harder to avoid.
Should Every Platform Play By the Same Rules?
There is also a broader question around regulation.
Traditional broadcasters may have obligations around licensing and local content that do not apply in exactly the same way to international streaming platforms.
Telecommunications companies operate physical networks and face regulatory requirements that a social media company does not.
Yet from a consumer’s perspective, those distinctions can feel increasingly irrelevant.
A viewer might choose between Netflix and television without caring which one is regulated as a broadcaster.
A person sending a WhatsApp call is unlikely to think about how it differs from a traditional voice call from a regulatory perspective.
The technology has blurred the boundaries.
Regulation now has to catch up with the way people actually use these services.
What Happens Next?
For now, not much changes for the average consumer.
The inquiries still have to run their course. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to make submissions, ICASA will gather evidence and the regulator will eventually decide whether changes to the market or regulatory framework are necessary.
That makes this a story to watch rather than a reason to expect immediate changes to your monthly bills.
But the questions being asked are becoming increasingly important.
Who should contribute to the infrastructure that makes the digital economy possible?
How should global technology platforms be regulated when they compete directly with traditional industries?
And how do you build a digital environment that encourages investment without making connectivity unaffordable?
South Africa does not have to choose between technology companies and telecoms operators.
It does, however, have to work out how they fit together.
Because the digital economy is no longer something happening somewhere else.
It is the network we use every day.
And someone has to pay for it.
Read the State of the ICT Sector Report of South Africa for a closer look at ICASA’s inquiry into OTT services and its potential impact on platforms like Netflix and WhatsApp.