Johannesburg – The Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) has formally cautioned the government that compelling internet service providers to block illegal offshore gambling platforms is not only technically futile and easily circumvented but also carries significant legal and constitutional risks.
In a position paper published on Thursday, 2 July 2026, ISPA laid out its objections to a formal request by the National Gambling Board (NGB) , which asked the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) to implement internet blocking in an effort to curb illegal online gambling platforms targeting South African consumers.
While ISPA – South Africa’s official internet Industry Representative Body (IRB) – acknowledges that there are certain forms of illegal content that access providers may be obligated to block, the association is adamant that any such measures must operate within a well-considered legal framework that respects constitutional rights and does not hamper ISPs’ ability to service their customers.
A Question of Constitutional Rights and Legal Frameworks
Sasha Booth Beharilal, ISPA chair, emphasised that internet disruptions cannot be treated as a quick fix without proper legislative oversight.
“ISPA’s position is that any disruption of internet services to South Africans should be done only as part of a clear legislative framework that balances the right to communicate against the potential harm of problematic content,” says Booth Beharilal.
The association’s position paper stresses that, because internet censorship inherently interferes with fundamental constitutional rights, blocking requests must be directed by a court or judge—not an administrative or regulatory body.
It further argues that all blocking obligations must be clearly outlined in appropriate legislation, subject to oversight and judicial review.
The Technical Reality: Three Approaches, All Flawed
ISPA’s paper outlines the technical challenges inherent in requiring ISPs to restrict user access to online content.
A breakdown of the three primary blocking methods reveals significant shortcomings:
Domain Name Blocking
The simplest method involves interfering with domain name system (DNS) requests for targeted sites. While this approach has the least impact on ISP networks, it is relatively easy for technically proficient users to circumvent.
- IP Address Blocking
This method blocks traffic to specific Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. However, it almost always carries unintended consequences—such as blocking unrelated, innocent websites that share the same address. According to a recent report by the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), a court-ordered block of shared IP addresses in Europe inadvertently took down more than half a million unrelated sites. Like DNS blocking, IP blocking is also easily bypassed using a Virtual Private Network (VPN). - Packet Inspection (Deep Packet Inspection)
This invasive mechanism requires ISPs to inspect every data packet generated by an end-user. The paper notes that this approach is typically used only by autocratic governments in countries where citizens lack the rights enjoyed by South Africans. It demands specialised, costly equipment, negatively impacts network performance, and—critically—can still be bypassed by end-users using VPNs.
ISPA’s Five Core Principles for Responsible Blocking
To address these challenges, ISPA has proposed five key principles that should underpin any legal framework for internet blocking:
- Judicial Legal Framework – Blocking orders must come from a court or judge, not an administrative body, and must be subject to judicial review.
- Mandatory Public Disclosure – Citizens must be informed of any blocking measures that may infringe on their rights.
- Time-Limited Measures – Blocks should be temporary and periodically reviewed to ensure they remain necessary and proportionate.
- No Mandatory Network Modifications – ISPs should implement blocks within their existing technical constraints, without being forced to install additional equipment.
- Fair Allocation of Costs – ISPs must not be left out-of-pocket; they may levy administrative fees limited strictly to the actual cost of implementation.
The Way Forward: Learning from International Failures
Concluding its position, ISPA cautioned regulators against viewing ISP-level blocking as a silver bullet, pointing to international evidence that such steps often backfire.
“Regulators are often quick to conclude that requiring ISPs to disrupt the services they provide to their customers will be a silver bullet to solve their problems. International experiences indicate otherwise,” concludes Booth-Beharilal.
“While there are some, limited circumstances where there may be a need for specific content to be blocked, such steps often have unintended consequences.
“ISPA looks forward to working with policymakers and other stakeholders on the development of a legal framework that respects the rights of South African citizens.”
ISPA’s full internet blocking position paper is available for public review, as the industry awaits further engagement with policymakers on this contentious issue.
*This article was first published in our sister publication techfinancials.co.za
