[kictanet] proposed new license fees for Application/Content Service Providers
alice
alice at apc.org
Tue Mar 4 21:36:25 EAT 2008
Hi Alex
Thank you for raising your concerns regarding the proposed unified
licensing framework. And as Marcel had pointed out CCK has not yet
finalised on this proposal. The commission had requested for comments
etc from stakeholders to have been submitted by 29th February.
best
alice
> Greetings Walu,
>
> At the school I went to, we had a headmaster and when
> school captains went to consult him, he used to say,
> "Before I tell you what I have decided, do you have
> anything to say?" I then asked why bother speaking
> when the headmaster has already decided?
>
> CCK should cancel those proposed fees completely
> otherwise they are guilty of frustrating promotion of
> local content from going online and other e-services,
> the fees being proof. On one hand we are working very
> hard at addressing the local content problem, but on
> the on the other the regulator is busy making it even
> harder to achieve that goal. Except for those already
> endowed….
>
> Why is it that whenever innovative, promising new
> services are round the corner, CCK shuts them down via
> impossible fees and conditions. Some examples:
> Outsourcing has great potential then CCK started
> asking for 100,000/= license fees from operators
> start-ups.
>
> ISP services licenses can only be afforded by city
> businesspersons - as a result 81% of Kenya Internet is
> available only in Nairobi leaving out "unprofitable"
> or "not so affluent/lucrative" rural folks. Local Loop
> Operators - whose, how many and where are they
> located? Regional Telecommunication Operators, now
> content... what will the next license be?)
>
> India succeeded in widespread internet penetration
> when their government came to terms with the reality
> that national access and growth was more valuable that
> exorbitant annual one-off license fees thus charged
> 0(zero) rupees to ISPs until in 2003 when they had to
> charge just 1 (one) rupee as contractual consideration
> to make agreements legal;) But apparently ours still
> believes in license income.
>
> Board Authority/Decision Processes:
>
> Alice Munyua sits at the CCK Board thus no excuse not
> to know or not party to this proposal - but she did
> not find it necessary to inform us of this important
> issue?
>
> Then why was it necessary to start a discussion on how
> to help regulators e-capacity if them the CCK Board
> knows it all? My onlist question on whether CCK asked
> us for help were ignored and never answered to-date.
>
> I think our regulatory approach could be principally
> flawed resulting in an "Open-But-Shut" liberalized
> market, impossible for many new players to enter in
> order to deliver effective market competition for the
> benefit of telecomm consumers. This explains why end
> up stuck with perpetually oligopolies keen to retain
> and expand their grip on the users ("the market") and
> a handful of institutionalized conformists benefiting
> alongside.
>
> The worst part is that the regulatory philosophy is
> (deliberately?) structured to lock out small timers
> and newcomers while consolidating industry benefits in
> the hands of a few, wealthy.
>
> For now and considering that the comments are expected
> by 5 pm today! I choose to sit back and wait to hear
> what the headmaster had already decided;)
>
> Good day,
>
> Alex
>
> --- John Walubengo <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Alex,
>>
>> it's actually the other way round. From a strict
>> government perspective - CCK Board decisions or
>> deliberations do NOT ofcourse need KICTAnet
>> endorsement.
>> Howevever I do get your drift, they (CCK Board) are
>> free to
>> harvest as much intelligence as they want from
>> KICTAnet and
>> other sources...which i think they were doing from
>> their
>> call for comments on their website and i think I saw
>> the
>> same in the press a while back.
>>
>> Maybe what they needed was to commission a
>> discussion
>> thread around the issue for a much better incisive
>> and
>> interactive insight....
>>
>> walu.
>>
>> --- Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> One would have supposed that kictanet members
>>>
>> privy to
>>
>>> this CCK Board decision ought to have have raised
>>> these impossibly large, thus SME exclusionist,
>>>
>> fees
>>
>>> for open discussions???
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Marcel Werner <marcelcwerner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Attention Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Are you aware that the Communications Commission
>>>>
>> of
>>
>>>> Kenya has issued an
>>>> important consultative document on the proposed
>>>> Unified License framework?
>>>> Comments are welcomed by CCK, due by deadline of
>>>>
>> 29
>>
>>>> February 2008 at close
>>>> of business.
>>>>
>>>> The market segments categorised in the CCK paper
>>>> Applications Service
>>>> Providers (ASPs) and Content Service Providers
>>>>
>> (CSP)
>>
>>>> (include all Value
>>>> Added Service (VAS) Providers and Web-based
>>>>
>> Public
>>
>>>> Commercial Information
>>>> Service Providers can provide economic
>>>>
>> opportunities
>>
>>>> to Micro and Small
>>>> Enterprises (SME) as well as Small and Medium
>>>>
>> Sized
>>
>>>> companies (MSE). Note
>>>> that all these services proposedly attract a
>>>> KES100,000 registration fee +
>>>> KES100,000 or 0.5% of turn-over charge. That
>>>>
>> will
>>
>>>> keep many players out of
>>>> the market. How many higher education graduates
>>>>
>> are
>>
>>>> working to create a
>>>> niche for themselves in the market? They should
>>>>
>> be
>>
>>>> encouraged and
>>>> supported!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The new regulatory framework should not place
>>>>
>> any
>>
>>>> obstacles to new investors
>>>> and market entrants, especially not to SME's.
>>>> Therefore, the
>>>> proposedlicense fees for these two categories
>>>>
>> should
>>
>>>> be replaced by a
>>>> general
>>>> license. Normally, such licensees does not pay
>>>> license fees but register
>>>> with the regulatory body and subsequently
>>>>
>> receive a
>>
>>>> certificate endorsing
>>>> their operations in the sector.
>>>>
>>>> MARCEL WERNER
>>>> Kenya ICT Federation
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>>> kictanet mailing list
>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>>>>
>>>>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
>>>> This message was sent to: alex.gakuru at yahoo.com
>>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>>>>
>>>>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>>> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>>>
>>>
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> kictanet mailing list
>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>>>
>>>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
>>> This message was sent to: jwalu at yahoo.com
>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>>>
>>>
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
>> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: alice at apc.org
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
>
>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list