Zain explains strategy behind deep tariff cuts

We will be spending Sh24 billion in the next 18 months to, among other things, roll out a more superior Third Generation (3G) network in the next six months. This will enable us to provide faster internet services to our clients, which has not been possible in the past due to the high license fee the regulator was charging, which it has since reduced.

We have enough capital from Bharti Airtel and we should be able to roll out this network twice faster than we would have done with our previous partners. We are also building 500 new cell sites across the country to boost our coverage and intend to beef up our agents to 20,000 by December, on better commissions, to make it possible for our customers to easily access our products.

Our strategy is to make our products available at doorsteps.

Is Zain considering acquisitions in the data and internet market to get a foothold in those segments?

We have not left any option out, when the right time comes we will make all this known to our clients.

Analysts say the frequent change in ownership and strategies at Zain Kenya has been its main undoing in its effort to bridge the market share gap

We are fully aware of the challenges and know that it is going to be a long and tough journey, this being the third re-branding. Our new owners are prepared for the journey ahead. 

What is your take on the recommendations to amend the competition laws, especially the removal of the rule that defines a dominant player as one with more than 25 per cent market share?

The Kenya Information and Communication Regulations 2010  were a product of wide consultations across the entire industry, leading to a healthy accommodation of divergent views prior to the regulations coming into law. The process underscored the independence and neutrality of the Communications Commission of Kenya as an industry referee.

While looking forward to the implementation of the specific provisions of this regulation, we were surprised to realise that the regulations were to undergo another review.

Whereas we appreciate the spirit of consultation in the sector, we fault the manner in which the review of these regulations has been conducted. In principle, it is unfair to amend a document that has been arrived at after extensive consultations just to accommodate the wishes of one player. Furthermore amendments, if any, should have only been accommodated after the laws had been implemented.

Laws are not created to suit one party. In as much as the revised regulations are a product of a review by a third party, we are of the opinion that the process of selecting the consultant should have been all-inclusive.

By appointing Frontier Economics, the UK consultancy, unilaterally the impartiality of the process and the ultimate output become questionable.