When South Africa’s telecoms regulator, ICASA, amended the End User and Subscriber Service Charter Regulations, the press releases and immediate commentary has been unanimous: this is a win for consumers.
Rival coverage leaned heavily into the network operator narrative, that data expiry is unavoidable, that billing systems are complex, and that the regulator has finally struck a “reasonable balance” between consumer protection and network sustainability.
But when you step away from the ISP talking points and read the regulations as an everyday subscriber would experience them, a more complicated and less comforting picture emerges.
Yes, there are improvements. But there are also carefully worded escape hatches, defaults that still favour operators, and protections that only work if consumers already know how the system works. This is what these amendments REALLY MEAN FOR YOU.
Automatic Bundle Rollover - Protection With a Stopwatch
On paper, automatic bundle rollover sounds like a long-overdue victory. The regulation says unused data from certain bundles must roll over automatically when the bundle expires.
Here’s the catch.
First, this only applies to paid bundles longer than seven days. Weekly bundles, the lifeline for students, informal traders, and low-income users, are excluded. Promotional, free, and uncapped bundles are also excluded.
Second, rollover is only guaranteed once. If you don’t use the rolled over data within the next validity period, it expires anyway.
In real life, this means a student who buys a 30 day bundle, uses half of it, and then gets busy with exams gets a second chance ,but only one. Miss that window and the data is gone.
What’s more troubling is what the regulation doesn’t prevent, operators can still design short validity bundles as their cheapest and most accessible options, knowing full well those bundles fall outside the rollover protection.
So yes, rollover exists. But it’s narrowly framed, time boxed, and carefully carved to protect revenue models built on data expiry.
Out-of-Bundle Rates - Bill Shock Is “Solved” by Cutting You Off
ICASA deserves credit for finally confronting out-of-bundle (OOB) bill shock head on. The rule is simple, if you haven’t explicitly opted in to OOB charges, the network must not charge you when your data runs out.
But here’s the part glossed over in provider-friendly coverage, the solution is service termination.
If your bundle is depleted and you haven’t opted in, your internet session stops. No slow speed. No grace usage. Just… nothing.
From a consumer protection standpoint, this replaces financial harm with service disruption. For someone working remotely, running a spaza shop with digital payments, or attending an online class, that sudden cutoff can be just as damaging.
There’s another quiet imbalance here: the regulation does not cap OOB prices. Operators are free to keep OOB rates eye wateringly high. The only safeguard is your ability to opt out, and that assumes you fully understand what you’re opting into or out of in the first place.
In practice, consumers are pushed into a false choice:
- accept the risk of very expensive OOB data, or
- accept the certainty of losing connectivity at the worst possible moment.
That’s not empowerment. It’s damage control.
Quality of Service Thresholds - Rights That Require Proof
One of the most under-reported changes in the amendments is the link between network quality and consumer remedies. If a subscriber cannot use their bundle due to a fault caused by the operator, the operator must extend the bundle’s validity.
Again, sounds fair, until you ask how this works in real life.
The burden quietly shifts to the consumer to:
- notice the fault,
- report it,
- prove that the fault prevented usage, and
- show that the fault was the operator’s responsibility.
If you live in an area with poor coverage, load shedding related outages, or infrastructure vandalism, good luck establishing that chain of causation.
There are no automatic extensions. No minimum downtime thresholds published for consumers. No obligation on operators to proactively compensate affected users.
So while the regulation introduces the idea of a quality based remedy, it leaves enforcement buried in customer service queues and dispute resolution processes that most consumers never win.
Sequence of Data Expiration - A Win, With Limits
Here’s the good news, when you have multiple data bundles, the network must now consume the one that expires soonest first.
This change directly addresses a long standing consumer complaint, buying a new bundle, only to lose an older one because the system consumed the newer data first.
For a small business owner juggling a monthly bundle and occasional top-ups, this rule genuinely reduces wasted spend.
But even here, the protection has boundaries. The rule only applies to applicable bundles. Operators still define which bundles can be used for which services (night data vs anytime data, social bundles vs general data). Consumers still need to understand these categories, something operators have little incentive to simplify.
So while this is a real improvement, it doesn’t fully neutralise the complexity that causes data loss in the first place.
The Bigger Picture
The core problem with the amended Charter is not that it does nothing, it’s that it still assumes a highly informed, proactive consumer.
Protections are often realized if you:
- choose the “right” bundle duration,
- respond correctly to depletion notifications,
- understand opt-in mechanics,
- report faults promptly, and
- argue successfully with customer support.
Meanwhile, operators retain control over pricing, product design, and system defaults. This is why provider friendly coverage feels so disconnected from lived experience.
From a billing system’s perspective, the amendments are “balanced”. From a consumer’s perspective, they are conditional, technical, and easy to trip over.
Why This Matters
Telecoms access is no longer a luxury. It’s how South Africans learn, work, trade, and participate in society.
Regulation that truly centers around consumers should reduce the need for vigilance, not increase it. It should prevent harm by default, not merely offer remedies after the fact.
ICASA’s amendments move in the right direction, but they stop short of shifting real power away from providers. Until defaults, pricing transparency, and enforcement mechanisms are redesigned around ordinary users, the fine print will continue to matter more than the headline.
And that’s exactly where consumers tend to lose.
