Wazua
»
Investor
»
Economy
»
Safaricom should sue CCK..period.
Rank: Veteran Joined: 5/18/2008 Posts: 796
|
@Jaguar..
I know its difficult for you to see it...
But tell me, why else would the small potatoes be cheering on the particular rule that @Brewer has expounded on.
Bwana soma the rules kwanza.. the moment you start relying on Capital FM presenters to interpret them for you...
Check this out:
"(3) A licensee shall not apply tariffs that prevent market entry or distort competition" -
- By whose interpretation?? So if Safcom reduces its cross-network tariffs to say 4.90, will they be in contravention? Will they not be "distorting competition"?
and what the hell is this?
"(8) A dominant telecommunications service provider shall comply with guidelines that relate to regulated services that are issued by the Commission."
"(2) The obligations that relate to the provision of a regulated service shall cease when a licensee ceases to be dominant or the market or the market segment becomes competitive."
Why NOT apply the rules uniformly??
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/24/2008 Posts: 238
|
Jaguar wrote:@mozenrat, "the rules will make it MORE difficult for Safaricom to review its charges downwards"...Really?????
There used to be a competition on 98.4 capital fm's the jam afternoon show called fact or bullcrap...your statement is b......p Jaguar, there was a program ON TV called STRANGER THAN FICTION!It is all true that once declared a dominant player, safaricom will not change tariffs downwards without the 90 days notice. It is the regulations that are b......p!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/13/2008 Posts: 1,565
|
mozenrat wrote:@Djinn..
1. Your statements are contradictory...You say "supa ongea doesn't work" yet "it will cost more to call nine out of 10 Safaricom numbers.". There's a network offering cross network calls at 6 bob as opposed to the 8bob on Supa Ongea. What LOCKS you in really? stability?? innovation?? patriotism (though misguided)??
2. It hasn't used its dominance to undercut any of the other players. Indeed, its the other players who've been playing the price games... and are getting burnt for it.
3. If matatus offer mediocre services, there's the option to use citi hoppa.... but people still stick with Mathrees even where the minibus option exists. If Safcom's services are mediocre, what stops people from moving..
@Mozenrat - 1) Its not the first time we are seeing this - recall EABL and Keroche - I think it all boils down to the same thing. Neither Kingfisher or I can get Summit but we WANT Summit. So is it brand loyalty when I drink a Tusker at Tamambos/Psys/Rezourous? We know that behind the scenes EABL plays hardball with bar owners and distris. True or not. Nor sure what is contradictory - Yu can offer a flat rate across networks but we do not know what interconnection rates they have with SCOM. And out of the 10 people I know with SCOM lines, the lowest they have ever paid for Super Ongea is Kshs 6. 2)No - it has. It knows that 80% of traffic terminates within its network. 3) "but people still stick with Mathrees even where the minibus option exists" - yes they do. And before Michuki, they were packed into vehicles like cargo and subjected to abuse. Could citizens on their own as individuals taken on the matatu sector?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 3/24/2010 Posts: 677 Location: Nairobi
|
@mozenrat, to digress abit...if you are a frequent public transport user, you would know there is really no difference between citi hoppa,kbs and matatus...they are all below mediocre so thats a bad example!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/13/2008 Posts: 1,565
|
mukiha wrote:@djinn: Protection? Lets go there: give specific instances. @mukiha - let's remember that 1) the partial privatisation of Safaricom was not kosher to start with - there was no laid down process other than the KCA had been amended to allow for competition in the sector and Kenya had made commitments to WTO to open up the sector from 1999. 2) Not meaning to be a consipracy theorist, but the issue of the 5% Mobitelea has never really been made clear 3) up until the IPO, the govt owned 60% of Safaricom - to allow CCK to shed its milk teeth and grow real chompers in terms of making sure Safaricom meets its licence obligations (mainly Quality of Service) - it would be shooting itself in the foot don't you think? Right now it has divested 25% and after the IPO raked in considerable money. For an outfit that started off with 9000 subscribers, I think GOK has made its money (just as it has with Telkom - I don;t think they really care abt the 49% in TKL) and is now ready to allow CCK to grow teeth. If I may touch on INDEPENDENT regulation and not relating to SCOM but to TKL (and from this infer that CCK at the time was only allowed to bark but not bite) ...some of you may recall a certain kerfuffle about incoming international traffic being terminated illegally to a private operator based at Lonrho House - that issue was swept under the carpet. The commissioner who made the bust was suspended and later re-instated. Shortly after, to the amazement of many, the "poacher" and the "game keeper" we swapped. I think that instance alone (plus many other that have never come to light since this is a multi billion shilling industry) have set a precedent and I think Charles Njoroge has his head screwed on properly and will seek to turn that tide. Some of the ills date back to before Raphael Tuju being the Minister of Information... One final piece of pabulum - lets also remember that after KPTC was unbundled - Safaricom got most of the staff in terms of technical staff, legal staff (KPTC was the sector regulator) - and as such carried to itself some cronyism if you like - such that those regulating, knew those operating.... Now that the govt (via TKL) has no interests in SCOM and TKL itself too has 51% foisted upon France Telecom - the road is much more clear for independent regulation that will protect - no string
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 5/13/2008 Posts: 558
|
Rules are made for to contain the "Dominant" Player.
Dominant Player = Safaricom.
So rules were made to contain Safaricom.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/13/2008 Posts: 1,565
|
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/23/2009 Posts: 2,375
|
From last night's news looks like safaricom won the war. It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 12/8/2009 Posts: 975 Location: Nairobi
|
bkismat wrote:From last night's news looks like safaricom won the war. Blame this lack of information, on a blackout in our area. What was in the news regarding this?  You will know that you have arrived when money and time are not mutually exclusive "events" in you life!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/23/2009 Posts: 2,375
|
PS Bitange Ndemo said the Gov is ready to talk to the operators and come to some sort of consensus. Telkom Kenya CEO also said the new rules should not just target the dominant player but all the operators. It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/27/2008 Posts: 4,114
|
@djinn; what you are talking about is not government (a.k.a., statutory) protection but protection by vested interests (e.g., the directors of Mobitelea). Government protection would be something like what Postal Corporation enjoys: according to the Communications Act, no person is allowed to deliver letters weighing less than 340g, unless they charge at LEAST five time what posta charges! Current postal rate is sh25, thus all courier companies must charge at least sh125....check around and you will see that this is what they charge. Anyone charging less is breaking the law and stands to lose their license. Now that is gov protection; and SCOM has never enjoyed such! Nothing is real unless it can be named; nothing has value unless it can be sold; money is worthless unless you spend it.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/22/2009 Posts: 7,455
|
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!!! Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good returns.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/22/2009 Posts: 7,455
|
On a lighter note, isn't this thread getting "too long and cumbersome to read" I thought the Wazua admin set the threshold at seventy-something post with the the KDN thread (KDN - Just another Kenyan ISP ) Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good returns.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/13/2008 Posts: 1,565
|
@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).
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 2/1/2009 Posts: 31
|
So what more proof do we need that we have a crook at CCK?
1. Why did he let the government sell shares of a company making 'supernormal profits' that were valued on the basis of the same. Why contradict such a major goverment move? Shall shareholders be refunded for the subsequent changes after buying supernormal profits shares that are to be forcibly trimmed?
2. Why now?, this company has been dominant for many years.
3. What proof does he have that customers are not choosing a superior product out of choice?
4. If safaricom is superior, then the logic of his argument is eroded as he will be forcing customers to use inferior products which is anti-competative in itself.
6. Can the competition justify their claims in terms of investment? Does he want to assist them earn more by spending less than the competition? If he wants to control supernormal profit he should then control super normal investment in Kenya. Very unconducive to competition.
I say not only sue but sack this man who is obviously bribed and so drunk with corruption that he can only see from one warped view
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/22/2009 Posts: 7,455
|
@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! Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good returns.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/22/2009 Posts: 7,455
|
Amen to that prof. Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good returns.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 5/18/2008 Posts: 796
|
@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.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/22/2009 Posts: 7,455
|
[quote=mozenrat]@Maich... They might introduce rules to regulate the most dominant threads!! quote] You've just made my evening. Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good returns.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/13/2008 Posts: 1,565
|
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.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Investor
»
Economy
»
Safaricom should sue CCK..period.
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|