Well; what would you expect of a player who has over 70% market-share?

Are we going to punish SCOM for the mistakes [read, losses] made by Zain, Orange and Yu?

This reminds me of the fundamental error of giving scholarships to "children from poor families", but I digress. We can discuss that at another time....

My worry is more on what precedence this action is setting. Who will be next? Scangroup? May be Kenol Kobil? Nation? Citizen? Tuskys? Equity? Bamburi? Bidco? KQ? All companies will be afraid of growth and market leadership if it's termed unfair to be ahead of your lax and inefficient competitors.

This whole saga smells fishy. There is a Monopolies and Prices Commission of Kenya which is a Department of the Ministry of Finance.
Its mandate is to enforce Competition Principles and Rules in accordance with the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act.

Why does CCK want to duplicate a function that is ably handled by another department?

Sue, not sue, its all irrelevant when you have customers willing to pay more for dropped calls and congestion than other networks.

Safcon loyalty is illogical, so they shouldnt worry.

why would you worry about that? there should be competition law in all sector and i hope that this is but the first step in the right direction. and yes, the likes of kenol (did someone say a cartel?) nation, eabl (the absence of summit in most pubs and the stories about why) nakumatt etc have some practices which need to be tamed by an apt competition law. growth is not bad and should be encouraged but abusing such growth to the detriment of fair competition should not be.

it might look unfair for safaricom but once you are dominant in the market (regardless of how you get there - whether by hard work or otherwise) you should not be allowed to take advantage of that dominant position by engaging in restrictive practices.

the question should not be whether there should be such regulations but the substance of the regulations. that really is what we should be focusing on. not whether a dominant player in an industry should play fair.

off the cuff an obvious example of an anti-competitive practice is keeping ones cross tariff cost high knowing that your subscribers can't move as result and thus making it hard for people to subscribe to the competition.

the communication act (as amended by, i think, the 2008 amendment act) gives cck the powers and responsibilities to do exactly what they are doing now. nothing really wrong with that. there are no fish in the stock market in this instance.

and the restrictive trade practices, monopolies and price control act is a useless piece of legislation that was due an amendment (if not repeal) as soon as it became law. very toothless. it is one of the reasons that kenyans don't seem to appreciate competition law - but that is just my thinking.

Is safaricom really engaging in restrictive practices? High cost of cross-network calls does not prevent the user from switching to another network. I have seen many cases of people who have 2 or more SIM cards, one for calling (Yu/Orange/Zain - whichever is cheapest) and one for receiving (safcon). Subscribers really do have an option here, truth be told. That they chose to be loyal is not to due to safaricom's restrictive practices. They may not port their numbers, even after MNP has been introduced later in the year.

It is however notable that Safaricom will delay with interconnection agreements, drag it for as long as possible, thereby frustrating the other party. You may not have negotiating power, but then there are laid down rules on interconnections, such that there is no real conflict.

That said, i think CCK has bigger fish to fry, there is the issue sharing infrastructure, e.g. masts, fiber ducts. As to why CCK is not taking a lead on this, I have no idea. No building of more masts, in the country and no laying of fiber ducts in areas already existing. its a simple directive.

Outside my house, due to Thika road construction, I saw KDN guys come and dig a trench, lay their ducts and cover them up and construct manholes. 2 WEEKS later, Access Kenya were on the same path, dug up where KDN dug, and did the same thing. TWO weeks later, Telkom Kenya were at it. Surely, even the watchman commented on how they should work together. The worst part was the trenching when crossing the road, all the 3 companies had to dig up the road at the same spot and fill it up. The road was dug 3 different times, closed for 3 different nights. I was (still am) disgusted.

I am not a huge fan of safaricon lakini MJ was right... Why make them suffer for the others' deficiencies...???

That is the question!

I think safcon should (before the new regs come into play) lower intra-network to 4/- (current inter-connection cost is 4.42) & cross network to 6/-...

It will almost shut everyone else down... even if for a few weeks... LOL...

Yet safcom can tell the CCK that Zain offers 3/- (on-net), Telkom/Orange 1/- (on-net)... YU 6/- (off-net)... so safcom is still not the 'cheapest'...

Muhahahaha

When your competitors are idiots... Or do not take the chance or have so many new owners (management changes) that you become dominant is NOT your fault...

Kencell/Celtel/Zain/Bharti is the laughing stock coz we never know what to call them... Somehow Safaricom is a 'local' name that wananchi can connect to...

Telkom/Orange - These french are always complaining! Remember the merali crook had vivendi as the original partner...

YU - OK, they may have a legit claim on voice but not on data or money transfer

Safaricom makes loads of cash from M-Pesa & Data which ALL the others could have introduced but did not...

I am using a 'fast' safcom modem they gave me 'free' (made me buy 4,000 of data!)...

AMEN...