The digital land grab: white-owned fibre giants are encroaching on township markets
South Africa is under siege once more, and this time not by force of arms, but through fibre cables and Wi-Fi routers. In the name of 'connectivity,' we are witnessing the second coming of a land grab.
First, they came for our land. Now, they are coming for our markets, our digital land, in townships and rural areas that black-owned Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have long nurtured and pioneered.
We are not watching history repeat itself, we are living it.
The Historic Echo: From Stolen Land to Stolen Market
The dispossession of black people from their ancestral land is one of the darkest stains in South Africa's history. Through the 1913 Natives Land Act and decades of apartheid legislation, 87% of land was allocated to a white minority. Even today, the vast majority of land remains in white hands, with very little restitution achieved through the post 1994 democratic process.
And now, in this so called fourth industrial revolution, a similar pattern is emerging, only this time the conquest is digital.
Townships and rural villages that were never deemed "bankable" are now hotspots of fibre rollout, not by black-owned companies, but by well funded white Afrikaner corporations who ignored these areas until black ISPs created the demand and proved the market.
This is not coincidence. It is a calculated strategy of digital colonisation.
The History of Telecommunications in South Africa
South Africa's telecoms sector has always reflected the broader racial and class divide. Under apartheid, black communities were structurally excluded from fixed-line access, and investment into communications infrastructure was concentrated in white suburbs and business districts.
Even post-1994, liberalisation of the market through the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not equate to transformation. A handful of white-owned corporations and foreign multinationals consolidated the infrastructure value chain, from undersea cables and fibre networks to mobile spectrum and switching centres, while black operators were relegated to the periphery with little capital support or policy favour.
Today, the vast majority of fibre infrastructure, including open-access and wholesale networks, remains under white ownership, decades after the so called economic reform.
The Power of Black ISPs Already on the Ground
Despite the odds, black-owned ISPs have built meaningful networks across South Africa's townships and rural communities. Operators like Mzansi Comnet in KwaZulu-Natal, EC Internet in the Eastern Cape, UdyNet in the Free State, Bakwena Telecommunications in Gauteng, MLR Wireless in Limpopo, NC Connect in the Northern Cape, Skynet in the Western Cape, and Jireh Technologies in Mpumalanga are not just surviving, they're connecting over 200 000 clients collectively. These networks were not funded by banks or big capital, they were built with grit, hustle, and community trust. Yet these same operators are now being pushed out of their own markets by well financed fibre giants with state protection and private equity firepower. This is not development, this is displacement.
The Digital Divide, and Who's Profiting From It
According to Statistics South Africa's 2023 Baseline ICT Access Survey, only 1.7% of rural households had internet access at home. In urban areas, especially former white suburbs, access exceeded 70%. The fibre rollout was supposed to close this divide. But instead, it has been used to transfer value from townships to white-owned infrastructure companies.
Companies like Vumatel, Herotel, and Fibertime are aggressively capturing township economies through low-cost fibre offerings, funded by billions in private equity and shielded by their relationships in the public sector.
Meanwhile, black-owned ISPs, many of whom pioneered connectivity using wireless and Wi-Fi mesh systems, are being pushed out of the very communities they built. These fibre giants exploit wholesale access from Openserve or DFA and offer pricing that local black ISPs cannot compete with, simply because they are excluded from finance and infrastructure ownership.
The Betrayal of the State and the Banks
The South African state has watched this play out with indifference, if not quiet complicity. I charge public finance institutions such as the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), National Empowerment Fund (NEF), and Development Bank of Southern Africa as having failed to develop targeted funding instruments for black ISPs.
Despite consistent calls for township fibre expansion funds, low-interest backhaul financing, and equipment lease support, black-owned ISPs are treated like high-risk liabilities, while white-owned companies receive multi-million rand deals from both banks and government-linked entities.
Where is the transformation mandate?
Why are banks and development funding institutes refusing to fund businesses that actually serve poor communities and instead backing companies that only show up once the market is proven?
This Is Our Second Land, and If We Lose It, It's Gone Forever
Let us be brutally honest: if we lose the township market to white fibre giants, we will never get it back. Just as we lost the land and have struggled for more than a century to reclaim it, once the networks are entrenched, and once the customer loyalty is locked in through debit orders and data contracts, there will be no coming back for black ISPs.
The future of education, work, health, and finance is online. Whoever owns the internet in a community owns its economy. And right now, black people are about to become digital tenants on land we once hoped to develop for ourselves.
A Call to Action for Equity in the Digital Economy
The time for polite conversations is over. There is an urgent need for:
A moratorium on fibre rollout in townships without transparent local consultation and equitable participation.
A public inquiry into subcontracting practices in township fibre builds.
State funded backhaul access for black ISPs at cost-based pricing.
Earmarked funds at the IDC, NEF, and USAASA (Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa) exclusively for township connectivity led by black operators.
Spectrum allocation frameworks that prioritise township and rural network operators.
Community benefit agreements as a condition for fibre wayleaves and trenching rights.
Conclusion: Never Again
We were beaten once, stripped of our land, dignity, and economic power. We cannot allow it to happen again in this new era of connectivity.This is the land we are trying to claim, not with rifles, but with routers. Not with protests, but with policy and participation. If we let it slide, our children will inherit a digital world where they are permanent consumers and never producers.
We are not here to beg for inclusion.We are here to reclaim our stake in the digital economy, and this time, we are not giving it back.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
10-06-2025
- IOL News
The digital land grab: white-owned fibre giants are encroaching on township markets
South Africa is under siege once more, and this time not by force of arms, but through fibre cables and Wi-Fi routers. In the name of 'connectivity,' we are witnessing the second coming of a land grab. First, they came for our land. Now, they are coming for our markets, our digital land, in townships and rural areas that black-owned Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have long nurtured and pioneered. We are not watching history repeat itself, we are living it. The Historic Echo: From Stolen Land to Stolen Market The dispossession of black people from their ancestral land is one of the darkest stains in South Africa's history. Through the 1913 Natives Land Act and decades of apartheid legislation, 87% of land was allocated to a white minority. Even today, the vast majority of land remains in white hands, with very little restitution achieved through the post 1994 democratic process. And now, in this so called fourth industrial revolution, a similar pattern is emerging, only this time the conquest is digital. Townships and rural villages that were never deemed "bankable" are now hotspots of fibre rollout, not by black-owned companies, but by well funded white Afrikaner corporations who ignored these areas until black ISPs created the demand and proved the market. This is not coincidence. It is a calculated strategy of digital colonisation. The History of Telecommunications in South Africa South Africa's telecoms sector has always reflected the broader racial and class divide. Under apartheid, black communities were structurally excluded from fixed-line access, and investment into communications infrastructure was concentrated in white suburbs and business districts. Even post-1994, liberalisation of the market through the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not equate to transformation. A handful of white-owned corporations and foreign multinationals consolidated the infrastructure value chain, from undersea cables and fibre networks to mobile spectrum and switching centres, while black operators were relegated to the periphery with little capital support or policy favour. Today, the vast majority of fibre infrastructure, including open-access and wholesale networks, remains under white ownership, decades after the so called economic reform. The Power of Black ISPs Already on the Ground Despite the odds, black-owned ISPs have built meaningful networks across South Africa's townships and rural communities. Operators like Mzansi Comnet in KwaZulu-Natal, EC Internet in the Eastern Cape, UdyNet in the Free State, Bakwena Telecommunications in Gauteng, MLR Wireless in Limpopo, NC Connect in the Northern Cape, Skynet in the Western Cape, and Jireh Technologies in Mpumalanga are not just surviving, they're connecting over 200 000 clients collectively. These networks were not funded by banks or big capital, they were built with grit, hustle, and community trust. Yet these same operators are now being pushed out of their own markets by well financed fibre giants with state protection and private equity firepower. This is not development, this is displacement. The Digital Divide, and Who's Profiting From It According to Statistics South Africa's 2023 Baseline ICT Access Survey, only 1.7% of rural households had internet access at home. In urban areas, especially former white suburbs, access exceeded 70%. The fibre rollout was supposed to close this divide. But instead, it has been used to transfer value from townships to white-owned infrastructure companies. Companies like Vumatel, Herotel, and Fibertime are aggressively capturing township economies through low-cost fibre offerings, funded by billions in private equity and shielded by their relationships in the public sector. Meanwhile, black-owned ISPs, many of whom pioneered connectivity using wireless and Wi-Fi mesh systems, are being pushed out of the very communities they built. These fibre giants exploit wholesale access from Openserve or DFA and offer pricing that local black ISPs cannot compete with, simply because they are excluded from finance and infrastructure ownership. The Betrayal of the State and the Banks The South African state has watched this play out with indifference, if not quiet complicity. I charge public finance institutions such as the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), National Empowerment Fund (NEF), and Development Bank of Southern Africa as having failed to develop targeted funding instruments for black ISPs. Despite consistent calls for township fibre expansion funds, low-interest backhaul financing, and equipment lease support, black-owned ISPs are treated like high-risk liabilities, while white-owned companies receive multi-million rand deals from both banks and government-linked entities. Where is the transformation mandate? Why are banks and development funding institutes refusing to fund businesses that actually serve poor communities and instead backing companies that only show up once the market is proven? This Is Our Second Land, and If We Lose It, It's Gone Forever Let us be brutally honest: if we lose the township market to white fibre giants, we will never get it back. Just as we lost the land and have struggled for more than a century to reclaim it, once the networks are entrenched, and once the customer loyalty is locked in through debit orders and data contracts, there will be no coming back for black ISPs. The future of education, work, health, and finance is online. Whoever owns the internet in a community owns its economy. And right now, black people are about to become digital tenants on land we once hoped to develop for ourselves. A Call to Action for Equity in the Digital Economy The time for polite conversations is over. There is an urgent need for: A moratorium on fibre rollout in townships without transparent local consultation and equitable participation. A public inquiry into subcontracting practices in township fibre builds. State funded backhaul access for black ISPs at cost-based pricing. Earmarked funds at the IDC, NEF, and USAASA (Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa) exclusively for township connectivity led by black operators. Spectrum allocation frameworks that prioritise township and rural network operators. Community benefit agreements as a condition for fibre wayleaves and trenching rights. Conclusion: Never Again We were beaten once, stripped of our land, dignity, and economic power. We cannot allow it to happen again in this new era of is the land we are trying to claim, not with rifles, but with routers. Not with protests, but with policy and participation. If we let it slide, our children will inherit a digital world where they are permanent consumers and never producers. We are not here to beg for are here to reclaim our stake in the digital economy, and this time, we are not giving it back.
IOL News
06-06-2025
- IOL News
Elon Musk's influence on Trump: A closer look at the Afrikaner genocide debate
US president Donald Trump shakes hands with billionaire businessman Elon Musk on May 30 before their public feud. Image: Allison Robbert / AFP The public fallout between US President Donald Trump and South African-born billionaire Elon Musk is not bothering one of the political parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU). Trump and Musk took to their social media platforms this week over differences in his administration's spending. Musk stated that Trump would not have won the 2024 presidential elections without his campaign spending hundreds of US dollars. Freedom Front Plus leader Dr Corné Mulder said he did not believe the approach by Trump or his administration would be changed due to the bitter feud and affect its response to allegations of 'genocide' against white Afrikaner farmers in South Africa. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Mulder was responding to questions about whether the fallout could see Trump dramatically changing his views on the white Afrikaner genocide in South Africa. Musk is widely regarded as a person who wielded immense influence on Trump. 'It is incorrect to assume that US foreign policy is based on the influence of specific individuals. Unhappiness with SA is not something new. Even during the (Joe) Biden administration, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the US Congress to relook the US-SA relationship,' he said. Political analyst Professor Dirk Kotzé said Musk has in the past been influential in these issues, but there are many other South Africans who are also influential and close to Trump. 'So it will not necessarily change this matter, I don't think Musk was the one who dealt with or promoted the issue of genocide necessarily, he was more there in terms of black economic empowerment and employment equity and those government policies that he criticised, so he will continue with that until there is an agreement about Starlink,' Kotzé explained. He added: 'When it comes to the Afrikaner issues and what is called genocide, I don't think he was ever a key person in that, I think that is more where the conservatives – AfriForum, Solidarity, (South African-born American conservative political commentator and radio host) Joe Pollak and others – came in to promote that idea.' Kotzé said his understanding is that there has been a smaller, second group that went to the US after the earlier AfriForum-Solidarity delegation, but without any public attention because it created much more disturbances within US politics in general. 'So I think it has become a controversial issue in the US, and Trump wants to avoid that. I can see that this is not going to be a public project in the future, it is not something they will announce in the media, welcome them, and have public events,' he predicted. Kotzé also anticipates that this initiative or project will, over time, actually slow down. 'I don't see it developing strong momentum that it will be something very prominent in the future. I think it is going to disappear over time,' he said.
IOL News
31-05-2025
- IOL News
What did the Trump-Ramaphosa meeting tell us about the image of SA and its leaders?
A video is played as US President Donald Trump meets with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington last Wednesday. The meeting was amid tensions over Washington's resettlement of white Afrikaners that the US president claims are the victims of "genocide." Trump criticised EFF leader Julius Malema and the "Kill the Boer" chant, citing it as evidence of targeted violence against white Afrikaner farmers. Image: Jim WATSON / AFP THE much-anticipated meeting between our President Cyril Ramaphosa and his counterpart in the United States, President Donald Trump, lived up to expectations, with the latter turning up the heat on his guests. By the admission of our delegation, South Africa is a very dangerous place because of rampant crime and lawlessness. While the jury is still out as to whether Ramaphosa succeeded in his attempts to reset the strained bilateral relations, what is clear is that the meeting gave the international community the impression that South African leaders are failing in their constitutional duty to protect citizens and govern the country. The result is that our pride as a beacon of hope in Africa is now hurt. The South African government came across as inept and lacking the political will to deal decisively with the scourge of violent crime, mass unemployment, and racial intolerance, to name a few crises. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading We are not yet privy to what was discussed behind closed doors and the deals that were made. What will be remembered about the meeting is Trump's wild and unsubstantiated claims of genocide suffered by Afrikaners and his display of brute power over Ramaphosa in front of the cameras. One could easily tell that Ramaphosa, like Ukraine's Zelensky went to the White House with a begging bowl. Unlike Zelensky, though, Ramaphosa went out of his way to massage the errant Trump's ego and thus came across as submissive; suffice it to say that some people would argue that he was being diplomatic. However, the big takeaway and the elephant in the room has got to be the painful admission from the South African delegation of the government's helplessness in the fight against rampant crime. This helplessness was in full display in 2021 during the looting spree after former President Zuma was arrested. To date, not even a single mastermind behind the 2021 riots has been successfully prosecuted. Similarly, those fingered by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry have not been prosecuted, suggesting that there's no political will to deal decisively with corruption and wrongdoing. This raises the question: what does this tell us about the image of South Africa and its leaders? The image of South Africa that Trump portrayed and that the delegation conceded to was of a lawless country whose government cannot protect its citizens from violent crime. In recent years, more and more South Africans are living in fear of political assassinations, hijackings, extortionists, burglars, armed robbers, kidnappers, and taxi violence. What exacerbates South Africa's problems are its porous borders and corrupt officials managing the borders. Lawlessness and the lack of political will to combat crime in South Africa are attracting criminals across the continent and from abroad to come and operate in the country with impunity. Crime in South Africa permeates every aspect of life, and it undermines good governance, efficient economic management, public safety, social order, and compliance with the law. The result is that South Africa is increasingly becoming an unattractive destination for foreign direct investment and international tourists. No wonder our domestic economy is struggling to grow and create much-needed jobs. What this means is that the problems of high unemployment and poverty are not going away soon, and crime is likely to continue. While Trump might not have succeeded in proving the genocide case, he appeared to succeed in making the South African delegation concede that crime, across the board, is out of control and the government is failing in its constitutional duty to protect its citizens. South Africa's businessman, Johann Rupert, was at pains explaining to Trump that 'crime affects everyone' and that South Africa needs America's 'help to stop this awful killing….' Interestingly, Rupert made the point that South Africa needs to fix its wobbly economy to end what he labels the culture of 'dependency and lawlessness.' The portrayal of South Africa as a country that cannot fix its problems does not bode well for its aspirations as a regional leader in Africa. South Africa styles and markets itself as a 'bridge' and a getaway into the African continent. Its membership of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the G20 makes South Africa see itself as a spokesperson for and leader of Africa. This begs the question: Is South Africa fit and fully equipped to be a regional leader if its government cannot provide domestic leadership? The idea that economic problems, such as high unemployment among the youth and poverty, are to blame for intolerable levels of crime is not convincing. There are many poorer countries in Africa without high levels of crime. The difference is that there are consequences for breaking the law in many African states. In countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, there is a political will to hold lawbreakers accountable. Ramaphosa's cute move to dispel the notion of genocide: In an attempt to debunk and send a message that there is no genocide of Afrikaners, Ramaphosa 's entourage comprised prominent Afrikaners such as golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen as well as businessman Johann Rupert and John Steenhuizen, a member of Ramaphosa's GNU Cabinet. Even the presence of prominent Afrikaners appeared not to be enough evidence to convince Trump that the South African government is not discriminating against whites, in general, and Afrikaners, in particular. It should be remembered that the GNU has passed three laws that white political parties vehemently opposed, that is, the BELA bill, the NHI bill, and the Expropriation bill. In this context, Trump came to the meeting wanting to put pressure on Ramaphosa to do more to accommodate the interests of the white population. This could explain why Trump saw the multi-racial composition of South Africa's delegation to the US as superficial and condescending. The Malema factor: In making his case of a genocide in South Africa, Trump played a video of the EFF's Julius Malema chanting 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer' and even former president Zuma singing about shooting Afrikaners. Trump then baselessly claimed that 'they take the land. They kill the farmer. And nothing happens to them.' There is no doubt that these slogans and songs about killing Afrikaners do constitute hate speech and incite violence, even though the courts have found otherwise. It was quite embarrassing to see our prominent leaders utter such venomous words at a time when South Africans should be forging racial tolerance and unity. Without realising it, Trump gave Malema the attention he craves and the status of a leader who stands up to the 'imperialist' West. Malema might have looked bad in the eyes of the Western audience for shouting hateful slogans, but among his sympathizers, he is now the real deal, who is feared by Western leaders. The slogan, 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer,' has a long history in South Africa, and it is associated with the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle. How embarrassing it could have been for Ramaphosa had he been seen next to Zuma singing a song about shooting Afrikaners, since the video Trump played showed Zuma wearing an ANC golf shirt while still the president of the ANC. So what message does it send to the world when prominent leaders in South Africa, including its then state president Zuma, sing about shooting and killing members of a minority group? The governing ANC has never denounced this awful slogan. This is the same ANC government that accused Israel of genocide but tolerates leaders who advocate for the killing of a racial minority. I guess this is the hypocrisy Trump sought to expose. No wonder no meaningful racial reconciliation has happened in South Africa. Can one then blame those Afrikaners who recently emigrated to the US? Zakhele Collison Ndlovu Image: File Zakhele Collison Ndlovu is a political analyst at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. THE POST
