Digital divide in Gauteng

Introduction

Digitalisation and digital transformation (including the impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), artificial intelligence (AI), the gig economy, and increasing digital work) are fundamentally changing how organisations and societies operate (Schlagwein et al., 2024). As a society, we are standing at the frontier of digital futures – long-term futures that are “centred on digital technologies, with equal consideration of technical, social, economic, and environmental aspects” (Schlagwein et al., 2024: 3).

While digital technology will undoubtedly afford many environmental, social, and economic gains, the pathway to our digital future is not without challenges. A key concern is how to ensure that the benefits are inclusive and equitable. Nowhere is this clearer than in the unequal access to information and communication technology (ICT).

For our long-term digital futures, access to modern ICT has never been more important than it is today, and its relevance will continue to increase. Juliet Tshoke, the Executive Director of Corporate Strategy and Planning at the National Youth Development Agency, notes that “the information technology industry of the future will generate new consumer behavior in their interaction with internet technology and business operating technology. Ultimately impacting on the future of workforce, business or organisational perspective and smart technologies”. Maximising the benefits of digital futures depends, to a large extent, on reliable and affordable connections to the internet. While this is relatively easy and “standard” for institutions and large businesses to obtain access to the internet, it is not necessarily as easy for small businesses and all households. A vast digital divide is opening at global and local scales, and will remain a significant and ongoing challenge in the years ahead (Sheik, 2023).

The digital divide refers to the gap between individuals, households, communities, or countries that have access to technology and the internet, and those who do not. The digital divide can negatively impact education (digital literacy), economic opportunity, the ability to adapt to rapidly changing employment environments, healthcare access, social inclusion, and overall quality of life. Because the digital divide in South Africa is also a function of extreme social inequality (by race and income), many residents still lack resources, such as internet connectivity, that would enable them to participate in digitisation and digital transformation and benefit from it (Mbiza & Sinha, 2023), in effect creating a vicious cycle.

Gauteng’s digital divide is the main focus of this January 2026 Map of the Month. We explore the spatial pattern of access to home internet and how access to home internet varies by race and household income. Even though the spatial patterns of the digital divide are influenced by infrastructure and service coverage (5G and LTE coverage), the infrastructure rollout plans of fibre installers, and household income, there is a very concerning element of social and spatial inequality to the digital divide that becomes evident in the analysis that follows.

The divide between home internet access

Respondents in the Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO) Quality of Life (QoL) 7 (2023/24) survey were asked whether their household had access to a selection of things that were in good working order (assets and services). Respondents were asked whether their household had a microwave oven or air-fryer; a smart phone; a cell phone; a television; a personal computer, laptop or tablet; a radio or music system; satellite TV; fibre-based home internet; other home internet connection; a car; a bicycle; a fridge; and a streaming service subscription. In this analysis, we focus on two issues related to digital technologies: whether a household had access to a fibre-based home internet connection and whether they had access to another home internet connection (Wi-Fi, home-based 5G, LTE connections or any other internet connection that is used in the household).

Among all the survey respondents, 14% live in households that use fibre as their only connection to the internet, 20% use another internet connection as their only source of internet, and 12% of respondents live in households that have access to fibre and another internet connection. The remaining respondents (54%) indicated that their household does not have any home internet connection. Given that 85% of respondents live in households with a working smartphone, it means that most households have other means to access the internet from home. This can be through mobile networks or access to municipal Wi-Fi networks (which are not household assets that were included as part of “another home internet connection”). The survey data also indicates that technological resources are underutilised in the absence of a home internet connection. A quarter of respondents (25%) who live in households with a personal computer, laptop or tablet, do not have access to home internet, thus reducing the potential value of the technological asset.

In Figure 1, we map the percentage of respondents per ward who live in households with fibre-based home internet and/or another home internet connection. Access to home internet connections is uneven across wards in Gauteng. In the central and suburban areas of the province (Centurion, Midrand, Randburg, and Johannesburg South), more than 80% of households have a home internet connection. In townships like Hammanskraal, Mamelodi, Soweto, and Katlehong, there are many wards where no more than 40% of households have a home internet connection. The parts of Gauteng where fewer than 20% of households have a home internet connection tend to be peripheral areas with small and dispersed populations, like the areas on the far western periphery of Gauteng. However, there are densely populated areas such as parts of Mamelodi and Sebokeng, and settlements near Daveyton, where fewer than 20% of households in a ward have access to a home internet connection.

Figure 1: The spatial distribution of home internet connections per ward in Gauteng. Source: GCRO QoL 7 (2023/24)

Figure 1 also shows how the digital divide is spatially associated with the distribution of racial diversity in Gauteng. When focusing on wards where black African respondents exceed 75% of all respondents in the ward (represented by dark red ward boundaries on Figure 1), we see that the proportion of households with home internet connections tend to be much lower. In fact, the average proportion of households with a home internet connection across these wards is only 36%, compared to the provincial average of 46%. Figure 2 further illustrates this dimension of inequality. It shows that only 39% of black African respondents live in households with a home internet connection, compared to 87% of Indian/Asian respondents and 86% of white respondents.

Access to a fibre-based home internet connection is further skewed: only 18% of black African respondents live in households with a fibre-based home internet connection compared to 74% of Indian/Asian respondents and 70% of white respondents. The spatial patterns of home internet access correspond with broad patterns of racial diversity and socio-economic sorting (Hamann, 2024) and reinforce a cycle of extreme social inequality.

Figure 2: Home internet assets by population group. Source: GCRO QoL 7 (2023/24).

Home internet and household income

The spatial patterns of Figure 1 are substantially influenced by infrastructure and service coverage (5G and LTE coverage), the infrastructure rollout plans of fibre installers, and household income. The nature of fibre infrastructure rollout – being driven by the private sector and requiring space on the road verge – means that rollout is focused on areas where service providers expect potential customers to be located (demand) and where it is practically feasible to install fibre lines on road verges. Infrastructure installation plans also require approval from the local municipality, which could impact progress. Fibre infrastructure rollout has thus mostly followed formal areas and households with higher incomes, so suburban areas were the first to receive fibre infrastructure.

However, the cost of home internet (possibly in addition to mobile internet) and the availability of fibre infrastructure add a concerning element of social and spatial inequality to the digital divide. Figure 3 clearly illustrates the extent of inequality related to the cost and availability of home internet. Only 20% of households in the lowest monthly income bracket have home internet connections compared to more than 80% of households in the top monthly income brackets. Once again, access to a fibre-based home internet connection is even further skewed, with only 5% of households in the lowest monthly income bracket benefitting from having fibre compared to more than 60% of households in the top monthly income brackets.

Figure 3: Home internet assets by monthly household income. Source: GCRO QoL 7 (2023/24).

Figure 4 focuses on the related spatial association between fibre-based home internet connections and monthly household income. Fibre-based home internet connections are clearly concentrated in a small part of the province. Wards around Centurion, Midrand, and Johannesburg South have particularly high proportions of households with fibre-based home internet connections (more than 60% of households). It is also clear that fibre infrastructure is not yet accessible to households in areas like Hammanskraal, Diepsloot, Tembisa, Alexandra, Katlehong, Tsakane, and Sebokeng. Here, less than 20% of households have access to fibre. Soweto is the only major township in Gauteng where households seem to have access to fibre-based internet. As mentioned earlier, this is influenced by market demand and the feasibility of fibre installation on the road verge.

When focusing on wards where the monthly mean household income is more than R12 700, which is the provincial mean and represented by dark blue ward boundaries on the map, we see that the proportion of households with fibre-based home internet connections tends to be much higher. However, income is not the only predictor of fibre-based home internet connections because the rollout of fibre infrastructure takes time. There are wards with above-average household income that do not yet have access to fibre connections.

Figure 4: The spatial distribution of fibre internet connections per ward in Gauteng. Source: GCRO QoL 7 (2023/24)

Conclusion

Digitalisation and digital transformation increasingly impact the shape of the economy and society. Maximising the benefits of digital futures depends on reliable and affordable connections to the internet. However, a substantial digital divide exists in Gauteng – one that is spatially concentrated and characterised by social inequality in terms of race and household income. For Gauteng to continue on a path of inclusive growth, the digital divide needs to be narrowed. Analysis like this can enable policymakers, as well as business, organisational and community leaders, to make strategic decisions that foster innovation towards inclusive digital futures (Schlagwein et al., 2024: 5).

References

GCRO (Gauteng City-Region Observatory). (2024). Quality of Life 7 (2023/24) Survey Dataset, Version 1. Johannesburg and Cape Town: GCRO & DataFirst. https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/collections/GCRO.

Hamann, C. (2024). Segregation and socio-economic sorting in Gauteng. GCRO Map of the Month, August 2024. Gauteng City-Region Observatory, Johannesburg. https://doi.org/10.36634/MIJV2656.

Mbiza, M. and Sinha, S. (2023). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Conceptual paradox or catalyst for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals? South African Journal of Science, 119(7/8), Article #16090. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2023/16090.

Schlagwein, D., Currie, W., Leimeister, J. M. and Willcocks, L. (2024). Digital futures: Definition (what), importance (why) and methods (how). Journal of Information Technology, 40(1), pp. 2-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962241301544.

Sheik, I. (2023). Navigating the digital divide: exploring the multifaceted 4IR challenges and technological disparities encountered by SMMEs within Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Technology audit and production reserves 5 (4/73). https://doi.org/10.15587/2706-5448.2023.287784.

Cartography/mapping: Christian Hamann

Inputs, edits, and comments: Graeme Götz, Dr Laven Naidoo

Suggested citation: Hamann, C. (2026). Digital divide in Gauteng. GCRO Map of the Month, January 2026. Gauteng City-Region Observatory, Johannesburg. https://doi.org/10.36634/OAAZ3308.