JOHANNESBURG – The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has formally warned the government that forcing 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 released on Thursday, 2 July 2026, ISPA expressed its objections to a formal request by the National Gambling Board (NGB) for the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) to implement internet blocking to curb illegal online gambling platforms targeting South African consumers.
ISPA, South Africa's official internet industry representative body (IRB), acknowledges that there are certain forms of illegal content that access providers are obligated to block, but the association is adamant that such measures must be taken within a well-considered legal framework that respects constitutional rights and does not interfere with ISPs' ability to serve their customers.
Constitutional rights and legal framework issues
ISPA President Sasha Booth Beharilal stressed that internet disruption cannot be treated as a quick fix without proper legislative oversight.
“ISPA's position is that disruption of internet services to South Africans should only occur as part of a clear legal framework that balances the right to communication with the potential harm of offending content,” Booth Beharilal says.
The association's brief emphasizes that because internet censorship inherently violates fundamental constitutional rights, blocking requests should be directed by courts and judges, not by administrative or regulatory agencies.
It further asserts that all deterrence obligations must be clearly defined in appropriate legislation and subject to oversight and judicial review.
Technical reality: All three approaches have flaws
ISPA's document outlines the technical challenges involved in requiring ISPs to restrict user access to online content.
A breakdown of the three main blocking methods reveals significant drawbacks.
Domain name blocking
The simplest method involves interfering with Domain Name System (DNS) requests to the target site. This approach has the least impact on the ISP network, but is relatively easy to work around for technically skilled users.
Blocking IP addresses
This method blocks traffic to specific Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. However, it almost always has unintended consequences, such as blocking unrelated and benign websites that share the same address. According to a recent report from the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), more than 500,000 unrelated sites were inadvertently taken down in Europe due to court-ordered blocking of shared IP addresses. Like DNS blocks, IP blocks can be easily bypassed using a virtual private network (VPN). Packet inspection (deep packet inspection)
This intrusive mechanism requires ISPs to inspect all data packets generated by end users. The paper notes that this approach is typically only used by authoritarian governments in countries whose citizens lack the rights enjoyed by South Africans. They require specialized and expensive equipment, have a negative impact on network performance, and more importantly, can still be bypassed by end users using VPNs.
ISPA’s Five Fundamental Principles of Responsible Blocking
To address these challenges, ISPA has proposed five key principles that underpin the legal framework for internet blocks.
Judicial legal framework – Restraining orders must originate from a court or judge rather than an administrative agency and be subject to judicial review. Mandatory disclosure – Citizens must be informed of deterrent measures that may violate their rights. Time-limited measure – Blocks must be temporarily and periodically reviewed to ensure they remain necessary and appropriate. No forced network changes – ISPs must implement the block within their existing technical constraints without being forced to install additional equipment. Fair distribution of costs – ISPs should not be left out of pocket. We may charge an administrative fee strictly limited to actual implementation costs.
Future directions: Learning from international failures
ISPA concluded its position by warning regulators against treating ISP-level blocking as a silver bullet, pointing to international evidence that such measures often backfire.
“Regulators are often quick to conclude that requiring ISPs to disrupt the services they provide to their customers is the silver bullet to solving the problem. International experience shows that this is not the case,” Booth-Beharilal concludes.
“While there are limited circumstances in which it may be necessary to block certain content, such measures often have unintended consequences.
“ISPA looks forward to working with policymakers and other stakeholders to develop a legal framework that respects the rights of South Africans.”
ISPA's full internet shutdown 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.
