Thanks Mwendwa for the resources. I\’m going to push back on your point on
using market share to define whether or not competition exists in this
market obscures a lot. When it comes to fixed lines what matters is where
the cable terminates near enough to you connect to. There are entire
neighbourhoods that are only served by a single provider. So my question
still stands about what the CA is doing to ensure more competition.
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 21:47, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com>
> Thanks Sidney for initiating this debate.
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 19:44, Sidney Ochieng via kictanet <
> email@example.com> wrote:
>> Not sure if you\’ve seen the stir online of changes to the ToS with
>> Safaricom\’s home offering.
>> Safaricom is destroying Home Fibre with new â€˜Fair Usageâ€™ Limits:
>> The response from the company has been disappointing in the extreme,
>> misleading with statistics and suggesting that it\’s best customers are
>> never mind that working for home has lead to increased demand and use of
>> their services.
> That tweet certainly does not call resellers thieves. It calls them
>> All this is beside the point, at least for this forum, what I\’m concerned
>> about this that if we didn\’t have an eagle-eyed blogger looking out for
>> this, it would have been completely missed until it was already in place.
>> So I have a few of questions:
>> 1. Does the CA have any policies around ToS changes around services
>> under their purview and how they are communicated to users?
>> CA has a consumer and public affairs department. Here is what they have
> to say about ToC ( CA/CPA/CEP/B/05/2014 )
> Perhaps CA should update that information. It is 6 years old. But good
> information nevertheless.
>> 1. Should companies that run what could be considered critical
>> infrastructure be allowed to arbitrarily change their ToS to apply
>> retroactively especially if it\’s to the detriment of their customers?
>> I hope lawyers here can help us with this.
>> 2. If customers choose not to accept a change in ToS what redress do
>> they have given that perhaps the provider is the only one available in
>> their area.
>> 3. Finally, given that we know this could all be avoided if there was
>> more competition in the fibre market, what is the CA doing to make it so
>> that we have more competition in that area? It\’s concerning that Safaricom
>> seems to only option for home connections in several places
>> Determined by the market and economic forces. Just the other day,
> Safaricom was not in the home fibre market. What they have provided are
> more options for consumers. Numbers are stubborn facts. Fixed data
> subscription is as follows: Data source CA, July -September 2020 period,
> page 19
> Safaricom PLC 229,406 subscribers, 35.6% market share
> Wananchi Group (Kenya) Ltd* 202,237 subscribers , 31.4 35.6% market share
> Jamii Telecommunications Ltd 127,914 subscribers , 19.8 Poa % market
> Internet Kenya Ltd 56,824 subscribers ,8.8% market share
> Mawingu Networks Ltd 11,087 subscribers, 1.7 % market share
> Internet Solutions Kenya Ltd 9,228 subscribers, 1.4 % market share
> Consumers are speaking with their wallets.
> As a policy discussion list, probably what we should be asking is what is
> the fair cost for certain broadband packages, and whether there is anything
> that can be really unlimited. Wearing my competent network engineer hat, I
> can tell you even at Safaricom, they don\’t have unlimited bandwidth.
> Bandwidth is a limited resource to the extent of the network devices,
> network media, and cost of acquiring and delivering that bandwidth to your
> edge device.
> Best Regards
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya