LETTERS: Regulator’s silence fuelling rumours on competition in the mobile industry
The Communications Authority of Kenya head office in Nairobi. FILE PHOTO | NMG
Much has been said about Kenya’s mobile industry, and particularly the state of competition or its absence thereof.
Reports indicate that a study commissioned by the Communication Authority (CA), whose findings were recently made public, found dominance in certain segments of the telco industry —namely, retail communications and mobile money— where Safaricom enjoys over 80 per cent market share.
Rather than shed light on the industry, this study and its being made public has only served to obfuscate this issue.
The big question is: what next after dominance has been found in these segments, like it has? What can we, as consumers, expect? Those in the know say that the immediate step is for CA, the regulator, to “declare” dominance.
More importantly, for the consumer, is the implications of such a declaration. Should we, as consumers care about this? Or is it a big boys’ conversation that should be none of our concerns as subscribers?
Assuming that indeed subscribers have valid reasons (which they do, seeing as we keep the telco players in business) to be an interested party in this matter, it begs many questions. So, what if dominance is declared? Will the regulator introduce cost controls?
What should we consequently expect as consumers? Will the cost of calls and SMS significantly come down? Will sending mobile money get cheaper than it is at the moment? And will such cheaper mobile costs be sustainable in the long term?
In the larger scheme of things, what does this mean for accessibility of mobile telephony across the country, bearing in mind that there is still a huge fraction of Kenyans that still has no access? Remember, the world is today keen on leaving no one behind, in as far as development is concerned.
Answers to all these many questions can only come from one point — the regulator. One of the reasons that regulation exists in any given industry is to facilitate fair competition for the ultimate benefit of the consumers.
This needs to be seen and felt for the telco industry. I wish to challenge CA to do the right thing and be on the side of the consumer, provide education and awareness on the issues brought forth.
It would be saddening to have another “digital migration” revisit where most consumers were caught in the crossfire between the government and the broadcasters, worsened by a lack of ownership on the entire process. What came out was that each party had their own script, further exacerbating consumer frustration.
While the intention of the report is noble and right, especially if it yields fruit we need not forget that taxpayers’ money has already been spent on research, putting the report together and even disseminating its findings. It is only fair that this is carried out to its logical end.
The history of this country, has many examples of reports that have been initiated, studies conducted and even made public, but with little action on the recommendations. Even within the telecommunication space, this has been the case.
The goings on in the lead up to the stakeholders’ dissemination forum where this report was finally made public, hints at reluctance and half-heartedness on the part of the CA. The forum only happened after being put off twice, at the 11th hour.
As a mobile subscriber, I await a pleasant surprise from the swift implementation of these findings, particularly if this will make things easier for me. In the meantime, it would help if the CA at least gave clarity on any ongoing deliberations awaiting the big announcement (if any).
The regulator’s silence on this matter is only fuelling all manner of rumours and hypotheses.
Kenneth Basanga, via email
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
