A lot of those saying Safaricom is abusing its dominance are hard-pressed to quote specifics (just like Airtel), most likely because it is not as obvious as they would have us believe. @vvs mentions supernormal profits, Thin SIMs and increase in bank charges. Now when did being really profitable become an abuse? As someone said earlier, Equity was growing over 100% for several years. High bank charges can be fought by innovation -- no doubt equity played a part in the demise of Barclays as a superbrand in Kenya by doing things differently. Companies always try to earn more money and should only be stopped by competition, not legislation unless of course they "abuse" their dominance, which in the case of Safaricom is proving a little too pesky to define. The Thin SIM business is a little bit reminiscent of what is happening with 4G -- instead of the gava building the infrastructure like Rwanda did, they have left it to Safaricom to do the building, and when Safaricom starts charging for use of its infrastructure, there will be all sorts of noises.
Check this from Airtel boss:
“It is common sense that Safaricom needs to be split,” Airtel’s chief executive Adil El Youssefi told a Senate committee in July. “Let M-Pesa be a national platform that is independent, for the mobile user to freely choose their mobile network.” Link
My old prof used to call this waffling.

Its just business, every business person would do almost anything to protect their billions.

Kencell messed us. It was the stronger company as compared to safcom but they were not innovative.

Hahahaha pewa beer moja....

@vvs, first let me own up to not knowing as much history about GSM in Kenya as you seem to, and so I will avoid saying much on the historical injustices bit. For a start, it is very clear to me why Safaricom would have been the one to make noise; it carries the most money traffic and Mpesa is one of its key revenue streams and its strongest brand, while the others have negligible revenue from similar services.
The parallels I was drawing stems from Equity's desire to ride on Safaricom's services (they may not be strictly called "infrastructure", but they are nevertheless what Safaricom's value is derived from). Why do you think Equity was so focussed on Thin SIM? They have kept saying that it is because they want to ease the burden on the ordinary Kenyan, but it is not difficult to see that their reasoning probably goes thus:
Since they cannot replicate all the services that people get from Safaricom SIM, it is much harder to convince people to move to their SIM even with more favourable money services rates, than offer their services as incremental to Safaricom's by having customers do all the stuff they need to do with Safaricom as well as the additional (and cheaper) Equitel money service.
Wouldn't you agree that this is a form of riding on another's investment? Note that I am not saying this "wrong" for it is likely the pragmatic thing, but I am saying Equity is not the angel and Safaricom the devil. The parallel is that if those services that make competitors' SIMs attractive were common property, then fairness would reign..

And although most people dismiss Safaricom's concerns on security as baseless, from a strictly technical point of view, I have my reservations. IT techies here may know of the Gevey Thin SIM which has been around for years (in Kenya too) and used to open "Locked" iPhones. It is actually a hardware man-in-the-middle (MITM) device that defeats the Telco's protection and allows the iPhone to be used on any Telco. This is exactly the same technology as our much celebrated Equitel Thin SIM and also made by Chinese. Does anyone wonder why we are supposed to be the first country to adopt this technology that has been around for over 10 years? I vaguely remember reading somewhere the defence given by Taisys on security: something like there was no software in existence to exploit theoretical possibilities. There are people out there like Mark Russinovich who if they have motivation would have such software in no time. For a time, this gentleman taunted Microsoft by publicly sharing hidden processes and flaws that MS was hiding until he (and his software Winternals) was acquired by MS and made into a top dog. While MS thought they had proprietary system, Russinovich saw an open system to play with.

And best of all, why is Huawei banned from several countries? Electronic spying fears. But here in Kenya, we give the Chinese official testbed (and access to money..).
Check these: Black Hat Article and GSMA

I have no idea how this will pan out but I get a sneaking feeling that already Equity is having second thoughts on how to advance this (or perhaps technical challenges?). Why aren't they making more noises on winning the war and advertising seriously? Why is the thin SIM costing more than normal SIM?
Oh oh, this is too long but you asked for it