cost to communicate

Cost to communicate

The Telecommunications and Postal Services Portfolio Committee received a wide range of inputs on the impact of the cost of internet access during its two-day hearings.

The University of the Western Cape highlighted the problems that university students faced in accessing data. Internet access was crucial to students as it facilitated different parts of the academic experience such as research, information sharing and communication with lecturers. While students could access free Wi-Fi on campus, students who did not live on campus were at a disadvantage, as they had to pay high data costs while not on campus. Students also faced the challenge of the high costs of ICT devices and software. Another presenter highlighted that high data prices also posed an obstacle to entrepreneurship in South Africa, as well as governmental initiatives such as e-learning. Those who could not afford data were also at a disadvantage on the job market, as most job opportunities were advertised on-line. Data prices should therefore be reduced in order to empower disadvantaged people and to help small businesses that were dependent on consumers having affordable internet access. Network operators said they were involved in implementing various initiatives to make their networks more affordable to consumers by offering deals and discount structures, but MPs felt that this was not enough. There was a lack of transparency especially for lower income users which was putting immense pressure on the cost to communicate.

ICASA came under the spotlight for its role in providing licensing agreements for which operators were not meeting their obligations. The requirement of network operators providing internet access in schools was not being fulfilled and MPs agreed that ICASA had to play a stronger role in its regulatory function. The guidelines, policy and research on affordability were discussed and there were no clear guidelines by the Department of Telecommunications & Postal Services (DTPS) or ICASA on the methodologies to be used. This created discrepancies in reporting by the network operators. Fixed line services were also investigated although the provisions of these services were different from mobile operators. Network providers echoed similar sentiments about the costs of infrastructure and the long timeframes in acquiring land and electricity in rural areas in order to set up base stations effectively. They asked for government to intervene to alleviate this as the provision of network to rural users remained a concern which they were constantly trying to address. Infrastructure sharing came out as a good recommendation from most stakeholders as a measure to alleviate limited spectrum. Many cost comparisons to other countries in Africa were presented and MPs questioned the reasons for data and voice call costs being more affordable in those African countries. The Committee agreed there was much work to be done. The Cost to Communicate needed to be explored and regulated for the most affordable experience to the consumer.