Why We Shouldn’t Be Hypnotised by the 6G Hype

Luvo Grey speaking at the South African Internet Governance Forum(ZAIGF) 2025 as the DeputyChairperson

OPINION | Why We Shouldn’t Be Hypnotised by the 6G Hype

By Luvo Grey , Managing Director EC Internet and Secretary General of the Progressive Blacks in ICT

Every few years, the technology world gifts us a shiny new promise. It arrives wrapped in acronyms, hyped by press releases, and amplified by conferences that insist: this will change everything. A decade ago it was 4G, then it was 5G, and now we are being prepared for 6G.

If you believe the glossy brochures and keynote slides, 6G will connect not just people and things, but our senses, our thoughts, and our realities. It will enable holographic calls, brain-computer interfaces, digital twins of cities, and fully immersive metaverses. It is nothing less than the operating system for humanity’s future, or so we are told.

Before we are hypnotised again, perhaps we should pause. Because we’ve seen this movie before, and the sequel is rarely as good as the trailer.

5G: The Revolution That Wasn’t

When 5G launched, it carried the weight of global expectation. We were told that latency would vanish, autonomous cars would fill highways, and surgeons in Cape Town could operate on patients in rural Limpopo with robotic precision. Entire industries were supposed to transform.

Five years later, reality looks different. Yes, 5G is faster than 4G in peak conditions, but the leap is evolutionary, not revolutionary. For most South Africans, 5G today means slightly faster Netflix streaming, but not the transformative leap that was promised.

Why?

• Infrastructure: Most networks still rely on Non-Standalone (NSA) 5G, built on 4G cores. The real breakthroughs like network slicing (dedicated slices for hospitals or factories) and ultra-low latency, require Standalone 5G, which is rare outside a few Asian and North American markets.
• Costs: 5G requires dense base station networks, especially in high-frequency bands. Unlike 2G and 3G, you can’t cover a city with a few towers. This is a capital-intensive business with limited return, particularly in low-income markets.
• Monetisation gap: Telcos have struggled to turn faster speeds into new revenue streams. Users stream video much as they did on 4G, only slightly faster.

Globally, operators have sunk billions into 5G rollouts. By some estimates, the bill runs to $275 billion by 2025, and yet, only around 21% of networks worldwide are Standalone as of 2025. The promises remain largely unfulfilled.

Spectrum: The Invisible Battleground

To understand why, we must look beyond towers and handsets, into the invisible airwaves that carry our connectivity: spectrum.

Spectrum is not a free-for-all. It is allocated globally through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN agency that manages how radio frequencies are used. Every four years, countries gather at the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) to negotiate, horse-trade, and agree on how to carve up this invisible resource.

At WRC-2023 in Dubai, governments debated the future. They identified bands like 4.4–4.8 GHz, 7.125–8.4 GHz, and 14.8–15.35 GHz as candidates for IMT-2030, the ITU’s technical framework for 6G. These studies will culminate at WRC-27, where final decisions will be made.

The stakes are high. Europe’s operators warn they risk falling behind the US and China if they don’t secure the full 6 GHz band. For developing regions like Africa, where much of the population still relies on 3G, the global race for 6G feels both distant and disconnected from local realities.

Spectrum is political. Spectrum decides who leads in technology, who controls patents, and who reaps the profits.

6G: More Hype, Same Story?

The early marketing of 6G feels familiar. Just as 5G was supposed to deliver remote surgery and autonomous transport, 6G promises holograms and telepathic connectivity. As with 5G, the question is not whether these things are theoretically possible, it’s whether they will be deployed widely, affordably, and equitably.

The truth is sobering: for an average cellphone user, speeds beyond 5 Gbps add little value. Streaming, gaming, video calls, even immersive virtual reality all fit within that ceiling. Beyond that, the curve of consumer benefit flattens.

Who benefits most? Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), who sell us new handsets, telcos, who launch new data plans, and vendors who sell base stations and antennas. For ordinary users, the value-add shrinks with each generation.

A Brief History of Generations

The cycle of hype is not new.

• Dial-up internet: Those of us old enough remember the screech of modems and minutes-long downloads in the 1990s to the early 2000’s.
• 2G (GSM): In South Africa, Vodacom and MTN launched in the mid-1990s, given spectrum licenses under conditions meant to expand coverage. SMS was the killer app.
• 3G: Introduced in the 2000s, promising video calls and mobile TV. In reality, it offered incremental improvements in browsing and email.
• 4G/LTE: The real step-change, from 2011 onward. Streaming video, social media apps, ride-hailing, these became possible because of 4G.
• 5G: Launched in 2020, still struggling to show its unique value.

Notice the pattern? Each generation is marketed as a revolution. In practice, the biggest leap for consumers came with 4G. Everything since has been less dramatic.

South Africa’s Unequal Telecom Story

Our local history is a story of unequal bargains. In the mid-1990s, Telkom was granted a five-year monopoly in exchange for rollout commitments. Vodacom and MTN were given licenses under favourable conditions, critics argue effectively for free, so long as they expanded networks.

Two decades later, we are still living with the consequences. Coverage gaps remain stubborn, particularly in rural Mpumalanga, Eastern Cape, Limpopo, and KwaZulu-Natal. Townships like Mdantsane or Giyani are rarely the focus of investment.

Why? Because telecoms is a business. Average revenue per user (ARPU) is low in these communities. A tower in Sandton pays for itself quickly. A tower in Lusikisiki does not. The result is a digital divide, reinforced by market logic.

This is why operators haven’t rushed to put 5G into townships. The economics don’t work. Yet these are precisely the communities that need connectivity the most.

Fibre and Fixed Wireless: The Real Revolution

This brings us to a crucial point. If the goal is to bridge South Africa’s digital divide, 6G is not the answer. Fibre and fixed wireless are.

Fibre to the home delivers stable, high-speed internet. Fixed wireless can connect schools, clinics, and community centres quickly and reliably. These technologies lack the glamour of a new “G,” but they deliver tangible benefits where it matters most.

In fact, if South Africa spent the next decade trenching fibre in townships and rolling out fixed wireless in rural areas, the impact would far outweigh whatever 6G might bring in the 2030s.

The Politics of Connectivity

This is not just a technical debate, it is political. The ITU and WRC set global rules, but each country chooses how to implement them. South Africa’s spectrum auctions in 2022, which freed up the 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz, and 3.5 GHz bands, were hailed as a breakthrough. Unless spectrum is tied to enforceable obligations that force rollout into underserved areas, the digital divide will persist.

History shows this. Vodacom and MTN were licensed with conditions. Telkom was given exclusivity in exchange for commitments. These bargains shaped our landscape. The question for 6G is: will we repeat the same patterns, or will we finally align technology with social justice?

The Hard Question: Who Really Needs 6G?

Let’s be honest: the average South African does not need 6G. We need reliable 10 Mbps for schoolchildren in rural classrooms. We need affordable 50 Mbps for households in townships. We need community Wi-Fi so entrepreneurs can run businesses from laptops in Mthatha, Gqeberha, or Polokwane.

These needs are urgent. They are transformative. They are possible with fibre and fixed wireless today.

By contrast, 6G’s holographic telepresence can wait.

Conclusion: Chasing Clouds vs. Building Bridges

The history of telecoms shows us that each new generation is marketed as a revolution, but in reality, the benefits accrue first to OEMs and telcos. Consumers catch up slowly, often without the fireworks promised.

5G is the cautionary tale. Its most touted features, network slicing, remote surgery, autonomous fleets, remain more demo than reality. Its costs are immense, its coverage uneven, and its benefits incremental for most users.

6G will arrive in the 2030s, wrapped in the same hype cycle, but South Africa cannot afford to be distracted. Our priority must be inclusive connectivity: fibre to homes, fixed wireless to schools and communities, and spectrum policies that reward rural rollout.

Let the wealthy nations race for 6G supremacy. Our task is different. Ours is to build bridges, not chase clouds.

References:

ITU (2023),

Reuters (2025),

Business Insider (2025),

Verge (2025),

Lifewire (2025),

CMS Law (2024),

Nokiamob (2025),

Extreme Networks (2024),

Wikipedia — Telecommunications in South Africa.