South Africa's biggest mobile operators have asked the Competition Commission for permission to do something competition law normally forbids: talk to each other about future network plans. The Association of Communications and Technology (ACT) represents Vodacom, MTN, Telkom, Cell C, Liquid and Rain. It has applied for a five-year exemption covering limited planning-information sharing on passive infrastructure in rural and underserved areas, according to TimesLive's 5 September 2026 report. The application, case 2026JUL0051, was opened for comment on 28 August 2026, per the Digital Policy Alert tracker. We found no reported ruling as of 25 October.
The strongest case against
Competition authorities are right to be wary. Rival operators that coordinate where they will build, even for towers and ducts, are exchanging forward-looking information, which is the raw material of collusion. Section 4 of the Competition Act, 89 of 1998, prohibits agreements between competitors that substantially lessen competition. The risk is easy to see. Information shared for tower siting could shape coverage decisions, and coverage decisions shape retail competition. Paul Colmer of the Wireless Access Providers Association argued the Commission should refuse the application. As ACT's CEO describes his position in a TechCentral reply, he supports co-location, leasing, roaming and open access but objects to competitors aligning their future plans. That objection deserves a serious answer.
What the application actually asks for
The request is narrower than the headline suggests. TimesLive reports that it covers passive infrastructure only: towers, masts, ducts, shelters and related support facilities. Spectrum, radio equipment and customer-facing services are outside it. Pricing, customer allocation, product development and network services are excluded. An independent third party would identify infrastructure gaps and coordination opportunities without passing commercially sensitive information to rivals. ACT also proposes information barriers and anonymisation where needed.
The economic logic is straightforward. In sparse, hard-to-reach areas, every site carries high fixed costs, and building duplicate towers can make a market unviable for everyone. ACT CEO Nomvuyiso Batyi says that "many of the biggest efficiencies in rural deployment need to be realised before capital is committed." Sharing rules that apply only after a site is built come too late to avoid the duplication.
The statute sets a real test
The exemption is not a favour the Commission can hand out freely. Under section 10 of the Competition Act, a firm may apply for exemption for a specific agreement or for a category of agreements. The Commission may grant a conditional or unconditional exemption for a specified term only if two things hold. The restriction must be required to attain a listed objective, and the conduct must contribute to one. The listed objectives include promoting effective entry into or expansion within a market by small and medium businesses, and competitiveness and efficiency gains that promote employment or industrial expansion. The Commission must also decide within one year of receiving an application unless the parties agree otherwise.
That structure is a useful discipline. ACT cannot win by saying rural coverage is good. It has to show that the information sharing is necessary for the benefit, and that narrower alternatives would not work. The section 10 tests already ask for that, and the Commission should apply them strictly.
Where the pro-innovation case lands
Our view is that the application deserves a conditional yes, with the conditions doing real work. Rural South Africa is exactly where duplication is most wasteful and where the market has least reason to produce coverage on its own. If the alternative is that each operator builds alone, or no one builds, then limited planning coordination is a proportionate response. A blanket refusal would protect a competitive process that, in those areas, may not exist.
But proportionality cuts both ways. We would want any exemption to include:
- A real independent intermediary. The third party should hold the data, and operators should see only aggregated or anonymised gap analysis.
- A hard scope limit. Passive infrastructure and defined qualifying areas only, with automatic exclusion of urban and peri-urban sites.
- Open access. Non-discriminatory access on shared sites for smaller operators, including WAPA members and MVNO-adjacent players.
- Reporting and a sunset. Periodic reports on sites built, duplication avoided and prices observed, with the five-year term not automatically renewable.
ACT itself concedes in the TechCentral piece that efficiency does not guarantee lower retail prices. That honesty is helpful. The argument is that savings can fund expansion, capacity and resilience where investment is hard to justify, not that bills will fall. The Commission should hold ACT to measurable outputs, such as sites deployed and population covered, rather than to promises about prices.
The scale of the applicants matters
TimesLive notes that the listed majors are collectively worth more than R700bn on the JSE. That is a reason for scrutiny, not alarm. Large incumbents have both the means to build rural infrastructure and the incentive to entrench themselves while doing so. It is also why smaller players' submissions on the record matter, and why ACT itself invited Wapa and others to put their arguments to the Commission.
The fallback options the sector cites if the exemption is refused, such as regulatory reform, public-private partnerships, municipal involvement and support from the Universal Service and Access Agency fund, are legitimate. None of them addresses the pre-investment coordination problem directly.
What to watch
The public comment window has closed. The hook reports a 28 September deadline, while the Digital Policy Alert tracker lists 25 September, so the exact date is worth confirming against the Gazette notice. The next signal is whether the Commission publishes a decision, imposes conditions, or asks for more information. A good outcome would be a time-limited, audited exemption that produces published data on rural builds. That would give South Africa evidence, rather than assertion, about whether coordinated planning delivers coverage. It would also give other African regulators facing the same rural economics a worked example.