The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) has published a discussion document proposing that would-be network operators be allowed to apply to it directly for individual electronic communications network service (I-ECNS) licences, instead of buying an existing licence and asking for the transfer to be approved. The document appeared in Government Gazette No. 55654, General Notice 4234 of 2026, dated 30 October 2026, and written representations are due within 45 working days of the day after publication.
The views in the document are Icasa’s preliminary ones. No invitation to apply for a new licence is open, and the secondary market in existing licences continues for now.
What it means for your business
If you run, or plan to run, a network business such as a fibre, wireless or rural connectivity operation, the cost of getting a licence could fall and the wait could shrink if the proposal survives. If you rely on a network operator, more entrants could eventually mean more choice. If you hold a licence you do not use, Icasa says it may consider a “use it or lose it” principle.
How the deadline works
The gazette notice asks for written representations within 45 working days from the day after publication. Counting from Monday 2 November 2026 and excluding weekends and the 16 December and 25 December public holidays, our own count lands on 5 January 2027. TechCentral also describes the deadline as early January 2027. Check the gazette notice before you file, because the exact date is not printed in it. Submissions go by email to iecns-inquiry@icasa.org.za and pmailula@icasa.org.za, or by hand to Icasa at 350 Witch-Hazel Road, Eco-Park, Centurion, with a digital copy on a USB.
Stakeholders must also say whether they want to speak at any public hearings, or they are treated as not wishing to participate.
What Icasa found
In the first phase of the inquiry Icasa received 33 submissions from operators, industry associations, satellite operators, public entities and members of the public.
According to the discussion document, Icasa has issued 470 I-ECNS licences, but most are “largely inactive or dormant”, and it approves an average of about 11 transfers of ownership or control a year. Its preliminary view is that the transfer route “has not been efficient and effective” in promoting competition, that demand for new licences “appears to be high”, and that the benefits of new licences are likely to outweigh the costs. It says direct licensing would reduce the barriers created by existing licence holders in the secondary market, and would help extend networks to rural and underserved areas.
Icasa said it does not consider it necessary to intervene directly in the secondary market. It will instead publish guidelines on how licence transfers are approved, and may consider the “use it or lose it” principle to discourage hoarding.
The cost of the current route
The document records Amatole Telecommunications as saying that a licence pair, one I-ECNS and one for services, costs above R1 million in the secondary market, excluding Icasa’s R84 738 transfer application fee per licence. It says Sateliot, Makhanga Inc, SpaceX and Springtug raised a lack of pricing transparency. TechCentral reports that Sateliot described many licence holders as “defunct companies who are uncontactable”; that is TechCentral’s account of the submission, and we did not check it against the submission itself.
Who wants what
The document sets out the split among respondents. Vodacom said it does not regard the current framework as a barrier to entry. MTN submitted that two or three infrastructure players are typically enough for effective competition. Sentech, Liquid and Avanti Communications said the main constraints are structural, including spectrum, infrastructure costs, wayleaves and wholesale access, and warned that new licences could end up dormant or unsustainable. SpaceX argued for direct applications, saying the transfer process gives current licence holders significant control over entry. According to TechCentral, Telkom and Rain argued that new licences would have little effect and that barriers are economic rather than administrative, and Amazon Leo, Eutelsat, Plan-S and the Global Satellite Operators Association backed direct licensing.
Icasa answered the viability concern directly: “the possibility of failure is not generally regarded as a sufficient reason to prohibit market entry”, and a new operator’s commercial viability should primarily be a matter for the applicant and its investors. Applicants would still have to meet the legal, technical, financial, ownership and operational requirements of the Electronic Communications Act, and Icasa would keep the discretion to refuse them. The document says only that applicants remain subject to “applicable ownership and empowerment obligations”.
Satellite services are not the subject of this exercise. Icasa states that the inquiry is not about a new I-ECNS licence for satellite-based services, because the licensing regime is technology neutral. Our earlier look at why Starlink cannot yet legally sell in South Africa covers the ownership rules in more detail.
What happens next
After written representations, Icasa may hold public hearings and then publish its findings. TechCentral reports that a finding would then go to the communications minister, who would consider whether to issue a further policy direction, and that an invitation to apply is unlikely before the second half of 2027. That timeline is TechCentral’s assessment, not Icasa’s. The ministerial policy direction that launched the inquiry was published in Government Gazette No. 53215 of 22 August 2025.
For related regulatory moves, see our reports on the proposed new space regulator and on the minister’s order to Icasa on broadband sharing rules.
