This "Regulations" are the biggest load of crap I have ever heard in a free market! You can NEVER come up with a set of rules aimed at one party and still imagine or pretend you are being fair.

Sample this:

This applies to football (CCK style)

1) The dorminant team will field 10 players instead of 11 and should not touch/kick the ball for the first five minutes after kick off.
2) Any player with "super normal" speed should start running towards the ball 20 seconds after the opponent.
3) A dominant striker should inform the referee in writting about his intentions to shoot 90 seconds before doing so. The referee can deny him the permission but if he allows him, he can alter the direction, force and/or timing of the shot.
4) Any dominant team that is two goals or more ahead will not abuse it's dominance by scoring more goals. Any such team might be required to tie their goalkeepers hands at the back, blindfold their dominant striker and have two of their dominant midfielders playing with 50 kg sacks of potatoes on their back. If the "weaker" opponent scores more goals than the dominant team, the obligations of the dominant team cease until such a time they score another goal.

I can go on and on but you get the point...

Either this is a result of a mega scam - regulations designed for the highest bidder - or CCK has a bunch of extremely stupid employees! But I think it's a generous mixture of both!!!

CCK - BURE KABISA!!!

@MaichBlack - the football analogy...hmmmm....seems like a non-sequitur - I'd like to think that if Leeds Utd played the best of Brazil, they would still all be individuals of varying height and ability and given that, would play as a team and not as individuals. What you suggest may only apply if they are REAL differences - e..g under 17 playing pros, or pros playing handicapped players, etc.

Recall in GP racing at some point they had to make rules to avoid dominance (even the book makers were fed up) - so they issued certain regulations on the make up of F1 vehicles (I could be wrong).

An alternative analogy would be Boxing. If you are a welterweight boxer and put on 20kg, you can no longer play in that category and must move up to the next category and face equally heavy opponents in the next level. In 1999-2000 - Kencell and Zain were in the same weight category - and the premise at the time was that they would not outweigh each other TOO Much - maybe 15-20% difference - but not 80%.

However, for reasons discussed above (albeit not exhaustively or objectively), one of these boxers in now in the heavyweight category. They had more access to the "gym", they put on weight, their scorecard (Fights, Wins, TKOs) may have been "fixed" giving them unfair advantage to allow them to participate in more matches and EARN more while at the same time boxing with bantans and featherweights, etc etc. Does that sound fair? And what is more, even within each category, there are RULEs - the Queensberry rules - which are all about fair play.

So lets not say that because someone is aggressive and a bully , that they are entitled to do as they please - if we allow this tendency, then we might as well laud all those exploitative companies that hire at minimum wage, scrounge on working conditions, offer no benefits, renege on contracts, etc in order to realise huge profits - the gap between the rich and the poor will widen - soon there will be no market left to sell to.


Otherwise we might as well throw away the queensberry rules and adopt the WWF rules (which is what we have currently).

@Djinn - This is business!!! If you can't stand the heat, leave the kitchen! Out there, small business are exposed to cut throat competition and the innovative ones survive. Kiosks survive next to supermarkets - if the owner is intelligent enough & has strategies and counter strategies.

Look at all the events that Safcom organizes directly or sponsors, look at their products, look at their marketing,.... They have got where they are through HARD WORK and SMARTS!! If the rest have run out of ideas, then they should "step". Ni hiyo tu. Hakuna jambo lingine. Hakunaaaa.

Equity for example came to the market and found established banks. They didn't run to CBK for rules to be changed or established aimed at crippling multinationals. They identified a niche, came up with strategies, implemented them and evolved with changing times. Before you knew it, it was the multinationals changing to cope with equity! Naivas, Tuskys found the Uchumis of this world and still survived. Kama unataka kufanya biashara, tumia akili. Don't replicate what other people are doing and expect to survive. Not unless demand outstrips supply!

@Maich...

They might introduce rules to regulate the most dominant threads!!

@Djinn

Surely you can present a better argument than this..
1. How can you not see the contradiction... You say that Safaricom locks in users becoz it will cost them more to call the 9 out of 10 numbers. In the same breath you say that Supa Ongea is alway 6 plus. Wouldn't that motivate the masses to move to Yu and enjoy 6 bob to the 9 - 10 ??? Where is the LOCK?

2. You say Safcom is expensive - SupaOngea is always 6+... and then you say Safcom is undercutting. You do know the meaning of Undercut, don't you?

3. The issue about mathrees was about following the law in order to save lives. NOT the amount that passengers pay for their fare... Wrong analogy... If Safaricom was engaging in illegal activity, then the govt would be obligated to intervene.

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?? Mobitelea was never a direct shareholder of Safcom... It entered into and INDEPENDENT shareholding agreement with Vodafone Group Plc and together they formed a subsidiary - Vodafone Kenya Limited... What is it that you don't understand??

So far you've ranted about cost of calling - which the CCK is bent on making more difficult to reduce? So what is the basis for introducing THESE RULES other than to benefit the other telcos.

Clearly the analogy of boxing seems to be lost to some....and the reverse is happening now. Some bantams and welterweights (grey matter wise) are coming into the ring now (seeming to dance like butterflies and hoping to sting like bees)...

should some of us shed 100kg in order to join the fray? Then again, we could be beaten at this game - I'm wary of arguing at this point.