"4. Surely what is the issue with Mobitelea... the Govt entered into an agreement with a private company (Vodafone Kenya limited) - keyword private - of what business is it of yours or the Govts who the shareholders of Vodafone Kenya limited were?? "

A quality argument you present, though a bit too textbook (and reeking of intellect rather than intelligence and perhaps coming from the legal fraternity whose bounds of logic are determined by the written law or the spirit of the law)....but, if the private company has as its shareholders, people in government/civil servants/people with vested interests ...using that shareholding as a way to get their kickbacks?

Why all the mystery anyway - if its above the board its effing above the board - so why all the the secrecy?

@Jaguar - thanks for that link. I;d like to especially focus on a keyword in one of my earlier posts - interconnection and then quote the article :


"The interconnection charge makes calls to a different network more expensive than calls within the same network"

Perhaps @Monzenrat can review this vis a vis 80% of the traffic terminating in ONE network and the remaining networks having to bend over backwards to get decent interconnection rates from THAT network...and then gauge their ability (or inability) to participate in a pricing war...

@Djinn

You really don't like facts, do you? But the thing about them is that they are very stubborn.

For your information, ALL player pay a STANDARD RATE of 4.27 as interconnect charges for cross network calls as DICTATED BY CCK. That means that Safcom has NO control as to how much calls from other networks that terminate on its own are charged and that you can forget paying anything less than 5 bob for cross network calls on any network. Here I'm quoting Mr. Menza of Zain.
"http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/Kenyabusiness/Lower-calling-rates-in-the-offing-3230.html"

If your are talking about Safaricom's tariffs for calls FROM its network to OTHER networks, that shouldn't concern you if you DO NOT (as you emphasized so vigorously) use the Safcom SIM card. And anyway, how would the reduction of those tariffs help the small potatoes? It would probably be branded "anti-competitive" as it would encourage Safcom subscribers to stay.

Kickbacks? you have proof?

Why the secrecy? That's why its called a private company. If you and your wife and kids form a company that buys shares in Safcom, whose business is that, except yours?

@Jaguar

How would you like it if you were forced to disclose your own business strategies to your competitors thirty days before you implement them? This is killing competition and innovation not protecting it.
Even the Rabbit farmers on this very forum (was it @Njunge?) refused to disclose their markets.

@mozenrat is spot on. 800,000 people stand to lose if these rules are effected, not just him...

@kyt...

Of course I stand to lose. I'm a shareholder and my company's management are doing their utmost to improve my ROI...

Then some busybody on Waiyaki way decides to crush its innovation by forcing the company to disclose to the small potatoes for them to copy and launch at the same time that Safcom does.

You can imagine - the next MPesa-like product that Safcom comes up with.. they disclose, the others copy and they all launch at the same time... How will my dividends ever increase?