This is sad. The reason why SCOM is ahead of the rest is because they've found a better way of connecting with consumers. I can bet you that only the provider who knows how best to connect with consumers emotionally will challenge SCOM otherwise the other operators with the exception of YU lost it a long time ago in marketing.

Woooaaa, this non-competition antitrust business, really needs a mind shift. You are all in class working hard to be number 01. Then one student remains top of the class for too long...

So now he must sit behind the class, not ask questions and pay more fees. And if he's still number 01, he stops attending some classes!
Okay let me not be cheeky


I'm a Safaricom subscriber and shareholder. But there's no arguing that Safaricom has become a natural (as opposed to coercive) monopoloy:
they have sufficient control over the sector to determine significantly the terms on which other players have access

Antitrust is supposed to create a more perfect competitive market and thus benefit the consumers/citizens - who are governments key responsibility. It needs to be done carefully so the consumers/citizens benefit as opposed to rewarding poor hawks (Orange, YU, Zain), because don't be mistaken, they do not care about us more!!!

A regulator is duty bound to check anti-competitive practices. The only question is how far CCK can and should go before becoming anti-business.

It appears that none of the contributors to this thread so far have read "THE KENYA INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (FAIR COMPETITION AND EQUALITY OF TREATMENT) REGULATIONS, 2010"

You can download the regulations HERE:

I have had a glance at the regulations and so far, I have problems with the following:

Section 7(2)d reads:
7.(1) The Commission may from time to time develop and publish, in the Kenya Gazette, guidelines to be followed when determining whether a licensee in a dominant market position in a specific communications market.
(2) The criteria shall among others include-
.
.
(d)the ability of the licensee to earn supernormal profits

But it does not define what is meant by "supernormal".


Section 10. (1) reads: "A licensee shall maintain separate books of account for each service as may be prescribed by the Commission from time to time and shall not cross-subsidize the prices for any service it offers in the market with revenue from the sale of communication systems and services."

Essentially, this kills the motivation for creating many services. Imagine this: SCOM may be told not to use profits made in data services to off-set losses incurred in discounted voice services. Ridiculous!!

I'm still reading the document, but so far it sounds like market control [as opposed to regulation]. The net effect is likely to be an increase in tariffs. In fact, these regulations might kill the very people it is intended to protect.

May be supernormal profits means 'more than the combined profits' of the other operators ?