By Tichaona Katsvamutima
Zimbabweans are paying a significant price to remain connected to the internet, raising questions about whether high operating costs, government taxes and limited competition are preventing consumers from benefiting from more affordable digital services available in other countries.
While internet access has become essential for education, business and communication, many Zimbabwean households continue to struggle with expensive data bundles, restrictive validity periods and the growing cost of accessing online services.
The affordability debate has intensified following recent remarks by Information Communication Technology Minister Tatenda Mavetera, who attributed high internet charges largely to electricity costs and Zimbabwe’s dependence on imported international connectivity.
However, comparisons with regional and international markets raise a fundamental question: are Zimbabweans paying more because internet services are genuinely expensive to provide, or because structural problems within the telecommunications industry remain unresolved?
Speaking recently, Mavetera acknowledged the burden of internet charges, identifying energy expenses as a major contributor to telecommunications operating costs.
She said mobile network operators incur substantial expenses powering base stations, particularly during electricity outages.
The minister also cited Zimbabwe’s landlocked geographical position, which forces telecommunications companies to obtain international bandwidth through infrastructure connected to neighbouring countries.
She indicated that the Government was considering incentives to reduce energy costs at telecommunications installations.
“It’s a process, it’s not an event,” Mavetera said, emphasising that addressing high data charges would require sustained engagement between government and industry players.
Although electricity and international bandwidth are legitimate operating expenses, the explanation raises questions when Zimbabwe’s pricing is compared with that of other landlocked African countries.
According to Broadband Genie’s Global Mobile Data Price League 2026, which examined 3,446 mobile tariffs across 234 countries and territories, Zimbabwe’s median data price was approximately US$1.19 per gigabyte.
The same study placed Zambia at US$0.62, Malawi and Tanzania at US$0.77 each, Kenya at US$0.82, Mozambique at US$0.66 and Botswana at US$1.10 per gigabyte.
Internationally, the study reported substantially lower prices in several markets, including India at US$0.06, Italy at US$0.05 and Singapore at US$0.03 per gigabyte. Germany was listed at US$0.46 and the United States at US$0.60.
Significantly, another African pricing analysis published in October 2026, using figures attributed to Cable.co.uk, reported Zimbabwe’s average data price at US$43.75 per gigabyte, compared with US$0.38 in Malawi, US$0.59 in Kenya and US$1.81 in South Africa.
The enormous discrepancy between the two studies highlights the difficulty of comparing mobile data prices across countries using different methodologies, package structures and exchange rates.
It also strengthens the case for Zimbabwe’s telecommunications regulator to publish transparent, independently verifiable comparisons of what consumers actually pay.
Locally, published market comparisons have cited approximately US$9 for a 5GB Econet Wireless Zimbabwe private Wi-Fi package and US$7 for a comparable NetOne Mo’Gigs package, translating to approximately US$1.80 and US$1.40 per gigabyte respectively.
For an ordinary consumer spending US$2 daily on internet access, the monthly cost can reach US$60, a considerable expense in a country where many households must also meet food, transport, electricity and school-related costs.
For small businesses, internet access is no longer a luxury but an operational necessity, supporting advertising, customer communication, mobile banking and online transactions.
Students, jobseekers and informal traders face similar pressures as more essential services move online.
Mavetera’s argument about Zimbabwe’s landlocked position also warrants closer examination.
Zambia, Malawi and Botswana similarly depend on cross-border telecommunications infrastructure, yet the Broadband Genie study recorded lower estimated data prices in all three countries.
This suggests that geography alone cannot fully explain differences in internet charges.
Electricity costs, taxation, licensing fees, infrastructure investment, competition and network efficiency must also be examined.
Telecommunications companies operate under regulatory and taxation frameworks that can increase their expenses, including spectrum-related charges, licensing obligations, equipment import costs and applicable taxes.
However, the extent to which these costs are passed on to consumers remains unclear without a detailed breakdown of operators’ expenditure and pricing structures.
Reducing selected taxes or providing electricity incentives could potentially lower operating costs, but such measures would not automatically guarantee cheaper data.
Without effective competition and regulatory oversight, companies could retain some of the financial benefits rather than passing them on to customers.
The affordability debate comes as mobile data becomes an increasingly important revenue source for Zimbabwe’s telecommunications industry.
Figures drawn from the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe’s fourth-quarter 2025 industry reporting indicate that mobile data accounted for approximately 50.75 percent of operators’ total revenue, while active internet and data subscriptions reached about 13.25 million.
The figures demonstrate growing demand for connectivity, although rising revenue does not necessarily mean that internet access has become more affordable or that operators are earning higher profits.
Consumers may be spending more because they require greater volumes of data, while telecommunications companies continue to face substantial infrastructure and operating expenses.
The question is whether the prices charged fairly reflect those costs.
Mavetera has previously acknowledged the importance of striking a balance between industry sustainability and consumer affordability.
“While revenue growth supports industry sustainability, affordability must improve to ensure a win-win outcome,” she said earlier this year.
She also indicated that POTRAZ director-general Gift Machengete had been tasked with undertaking cost-based pricing reviews, while advocating zero-rated access to essential digital services, including education, healthcare and agriculture.
Such interventions could ease the burden on students, patients and farmers, but questions remain about their implementation and measurable impact.
Has the proposed pricing review been completed? Have telecommunications operators been required to justify their tariffs against actual operating costs? What concrete measures have been introduced to ensure that any reduction in electricity expenses translates into lower consumer charges?
These are questions that require answers from government, POTRAZ and telecommunications companies.
Industry experts have long identified infrastructure sharing, increased competition and investment in alternative energy as potential ways of reducing telecommunications costs.
Allowing operators to share certain towers, fibre networks and supporting infrastructure could reduce unnecessary duplication, while greater investment in solar energy and battery storage could limit dependence on expensive backup power systems.
Government could also review telecommunications taxes and regulatory charges, provided that any concessions are tied to measurable consumer benefits.
Equally important is the need to reconsider restrictive data bundle validity periods, which can disadvantage consumers who cannot afford large monthly packages.
Longer-lasting bundles, transparent pricing and affordable access to essential public services would help improve digital inclusion.
However, meaningful reform requires reliable information about the true cost of providing mobile internet.
POTRAZ could address this by publishing regular comparisons of operators’ tariffs, including daily, weekly and monthly packages, alongside independently assessed industry operating costs.
Affordability should also be measured against household incomes rather than international prices alone.
A data package that appears reasonably priced in United States dollars may still be beyond the reach of a Zimbabwean household struggling to meet basic expenses.
The economic consequences extend beyond individual consumers.
Expensive connectivity can restrict opportunities for small businesses, farmers, students and entrepreneurs, undermining efforts to build a competitive digital economy.
As Zimbabwe promotes digital transformation and expands online government services, affordable internet access is becoming increasingly important to economic participation.
Mavetera’s acknowledgement of high data charges and the operating challenges facing telecommunications companies is an important part of the debate.
However, electricity costs and imported bandwidth do not, on their own, establish whether current retail tariffs are justified.
Comparisons with neighbouring countries, conflicting international pricing studies and the absence of publicly accessible cost breakdowns underline the need for greater transparency.
The central issue is no longer simply why internet data is expensive, but whether government, regulators and telecommunications operators are prepared to demonstrate what consumers are paying for and how those charges can be reduced.
Until clear affordability targets, transparent pricing reviews and measurable reforms are implemented, Zimbabwe’s digital transformation risks advancing faster than the financial ability of ordinary citizens to participate in it.
