[kictanet] The tables are turned

[Alex Gakuru]

Further
---
ITIF: MORE BROADBAND REGULATION MAY BE NEEDED
[SOURCE: InfoWorld, AUTHOR: Grant Gross, IDG News Service]

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation President Robert
Atkinson said that relying on competition may not fix problems with
broadband speed and cost in the United States, because of the high
cost of entry into the market. Many DC policymakers call for
competition to cure issues with broadband value and build-out, but
they don't recognize that the cost of building out competing networks
may make broadband a natural monopoly or duopoly. "It's a mistake for
policymakers to assume that if they simply 'push the competition
lever,' all the problems with broadband policy will be solved," wrote
Atkinson, in an ITIF paper. "The bottom line is that if policymakers
want to maximize not only societal welfare but also consumer welfare,
they must balance the push for more competition with the need to
maintain and create an efficient broadband industry structure."
Atkinson and some other speakers at an ITIF broadband policy forum
argued that the United States may need more broadband regulations to
achieve higher speeds and lower prices. Atkinson suggested a balance
between competition and regulations that would mandate open pipes and
create stronger enforcement of consumer protection and antitrust laws.
    http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/10/19/More-broadband-regulation-needed_1.html
    * The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy
    Reviews the four main policy options toward broadband competition:
1) keep the same number of "pipes"; 2) spur the deployment of more
pipes; 3) force incumbents to open up existing pipes to competitors,
and 4) regulate "duopoly" pipes. Although each policy track will
achieve some benefits, each also brings with it costs and risks.
    http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=87
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    WWWhatsup NYC
    http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------



On 10/22/07, Alex Gakuru <alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Eric Osiakwan <eric at afrispa.org> wrote:
> >
> > Does the CCK Act that brought it into force not provide for CCK to mediate
> > on commercial issues between operators when they cannot agree between
> > themselves?
>
> --
> Under sections 23 and 47 of the Kenya Communications Act of 1998, the
> Commission is required to ensure that communications services are
> provided throughout Kenya and that the interests of all users of these
> services are protected with respect to prices charged for and the
> quality and variety of those services among other responsibilities
> --
>
> Whenever "the interests of all users of these services" are threatened
> CCK can spring surprise cards from the deck, as it were. IMHO, the
> article is balanced in the sense of both the "Spirit of the Law" and
> "Letter of the Law" (hope no ad threat repeats;-)
>
> "among other responsibilities" commands/gives CCK sweeping powers but
> the converse is also true. *Anybody* residing at the remotest part of
> Kenya could sue CCK for not ensuring, for example, internet, telephony
> have been missing for the nearly 10 years of regulator's existence :-(
>
> But concerned with an apparent use, misuse, then abuse of the term
> "Consumer/Protection" by all these teleco rivals, earlier this year I
> wrote to the Commission urging providers to be advised to confine
> themselves to "customers" from whom they, even in this case,  fight to
> maximize their revenues. Not received reply from CCK yet....  (FOIA?)
>
> 1 cent?
>
> > Telkom Lodges SMS Petition Against Safaricom in Kenya
> >
> > In the fight for control of Kenya's lucrative telecoms industry, competition
> > is becoming a useful weapon in the hands of rival firms -especially those
> > that need to play the catch-up game to remain in the race.
> >
> > This market share war has become so intense that players are breaking all
> > boundaries in the corporate rulebook.
> >
> > Five months ago, mobile phone service provider Celtel took its bigger and
> > only rival Safaricom before the market regulator, accusing it of playing
> > unfairly in the market to the disadvantage of the consumer.
> >
> > Now it is the national operator Telkom's turn to lodge a landmark complaint
> > against its subsidiary -Safaricom.
> >
> > In its letter to Mr John Waweru, the Communications Commission of Kenya
> > director general, Telkom Kenya is accusing Safaricom of practising
> > anti-competitive behaviour in the market -especially in the Short Messages
> > Services (SMS) segment of the business.
> >
> > Telkom says Safaricom has been blocking the exchange of SMSs between the two
> > networks, thereby denying its customers access to key services that the
> > national operator is offering such as the one that enables them to check
> > their voter registration details with the Electoral Commission of Kenya
> > (ECK).
> >
> > "Telkom Kenya is concerned that Safaricom is engaging in anti-competitive
> > behaviour and in essence abusing its dominant market position by introducing
> > barriers to new entrants targeting SMS market segment," Telkom says.
> >
> > Public attention was first drawn to the matter after some Safaricom
> > subscribers complained that Safaricom was charging them for undelivered SMSs
> > to Telkom Kenya's Wireless network. SMSs to Telkom network got an automatic
> > reply indicating that delivery had failed yet the consumers were being
> > billed.
> >
> > Safaricom CEO Michael Joseph acknowledged that some of its subscribers had
> > sent messages to Telkom Kenya during the test period and may have been
> > charged erroneously.
> >
> > He said that although the company was not billing SMSs to Telkom Wireless
> > network between August 13 and August 27, some of its customers may have been
> > billed. Safaricom later agreed to refund the affected subscribers.
> >
> > Telkom says that on August 16, the two interconnectivity negotiating parties
> > met and agreed on interconnection rate and a technical testing schedule.
> >
> > During this period the parties also exchanged SMS test templates to be
> > adopted in the tests. Safaricom has however not cooperated in facilitating
> > the process, making it unable to commercialise the service.
> >
> > The matter seems to have reached fever pitch after Safaricom introduced a
> > voter registry query service similar to the one Telkom Kenya had rolled out
> > after it won an ECK tender.
> >
> > Telkom Kenya is complaining that failure by Safaricom to activate the SMS
> > service is affecting its ability to use an innovative platform that delivers
> > voter registry query services by utilizing the 460 numeric to access the ECK
> > database.
> >
> > Telkom Kenya says Safaricom acted maliciously in delaying to activate the
> > SMS service only to launch a similar service.
> >
> > "We are perturbed that Safaricom, having not been involved in the initial
> > tender process is currently able to provide a similar services using the 460
> > prefix. This is a totally unacceptable anti-competitive behaviour," Telkom
> > says.
> >
> > Mr Joseph declined to comment on the matter saying it was already before an
> > arbiter.
> >
> > Telkom Kenya is the majority shareholder at Safaricom with a 60 per cent
> > stake. It co-owns the company with the United Kingdom's Vodafone Plc which
> > has a 40 per cent stake in the firm.
> > (Source: Business Daily)
>