The Association of Communication and Technology (ACT) has applied for a five-year exemption covering parts of rural network deployment, arguing that operators should be allowed to align certain plans to make marginal sites commercially viable. Opposing that application, Paul Colmer — identified in the original reporting as the author arguing against the exemption — says the Competition Commission should refuse the request.
What each side says
ACT's case, as reported, rests on a simple economic reality in low-density areas: the fixed costs of acquiring a site, building a tower, powering and securing it, and connecting it to backhaul must be covered before any customer is served. In dense urban markets multiple operators can share those costs and still compete on retail services. In parts of the country with sparse populations, however, the alternatives are limited to:
- shared infrastructure capable of carrying competing services;
- deployment that arrives years later; or
- deployment that never becomes commercially viable.
Those arguing for an exemption say that requiring each operator to reproduce costly assets creates a barrier to entry and expansion in rural areas and that sharing infrastructure reduces waste while still allowing operators to compete on price, quality and innovation.
"The object of competition policy is competition, not duplication."
By contrast, the opposing argument — summarised by Colmer in the source material — accepts that tools such as co-location, facilities leasing, roaming and open-access infrastructure have a legitimate role. His core objection is to competitors aligning their future plans. He warns that sharing too much could cross a line from delivering infrastructure efficiently into coordinating behaviour that might hinder rivalry in retail markets.
Why this matters for rural South Africans
At stake are real-world trade-offs. Rural communities already face slower roll-outs, weaker mobile coverage and higher data prices. Allowing operators to share future deployment plans could speed coverage and cut duplication, bringing connectivity to areas that otherwise might never see commercial investment. Conversely, overly permissive sharing could reduce incentives for operators to differentiate services or invest beyond the minimum needed for shared infrastructure.
The core questions for the Competition Commission will be whether an exemption can be tailored so it permits the necessary sharing of physical assets without enabling anti‑competitive coordination on prices, markets or customers. The distinction drawn in the reporting — between sharing how connectivity is delivered and sharing how operators compete for customers — is central to the Commission's assessment.
| Option | Likely outcome |
|---|---|
| Independent networks for each operator | Higher costs, slower or no rollout in marginal areas |
| Shared infrastructure with competing services | Faster rollout, lower duplication, potential competition preserved at retail layer |
| Coordinated planning beyond infrastructure | Risk of reduced retail competition, potential regulatory intervention |
What regulators and operators must consider
The reporting highlights that the economic threshold for a viable site is the same for every operator in low-density areas. Regulators therefore need to balance two aims: maximise coverage and choice for end users while preserving robust competitive dynamics that keep prices down and encourage service innovation. Practical safeguards could include limits on the scope and duration of any exemption, strict conditions against price and market allocation coordination, and active enforcement and monitoring by the Competition Commission.
For ordinary South Africans — particularly those on tight data budgets in rural areas — the outcome will affect whether they gain earlier, affordable access to mobile data and voice services or whether any short-term rollout gains are offset by longer-term reductions in competition and choice.
The debate is not merely academic. It is about whether policy will enable more people to connect sooner, at reasonable cost, without sacrificing the competitive pressures that drive better service. The Competition Commission's forthcoming decision will be watched closely by operators, regulators and communities that remain on the wrong side of the digital divide.
