[kictanet] Fw: [ke-internetusers] at inflated shs 20 billion, let's just forget 'Number Portability' ever benefiting consumers

[Vitalis Olunga]

Though not in a  postion to give the cost details for implementation of Number Portabity right away, but most of the research finding in other markets have shown that the introduction of Number Portability adds insignificant value, if any,  to the ICT industry. Numerous case studies have shown that this is unnessary addtional cost.  In most cases, it is a sunk cost.  Though the investment cost may not be shs 20 billion as indicated, the general findings have shown that it doest not stimulate the market growth nor  doest it  reduce the switching cost from one network to the other. However, this may depend on how it is implemented (e.g whether it is subsidized by the government).   Generally, the number portability platform cost  has a direct relatioship to  size of the market and the number of opertaors. Thus this will definetly be an additional cost that can be used in development of other inffrastructures in elements ICT industry
 (e.g. for broadband). What the regulator should address first and foremost should be the intra-network call charges. These shoudl be cost based, to discourage  the oligopolistic kind of behaviours. Hopefully this is going to be addressed once the results of the recently initiated cost study by CCK (this is the second time this kind of study is being carried out).  Otherwise, going-foward,  the ICT indutry development should be market driven with limited regulatory interventions (only in the event of market failures). Deregulation of the ICT indutry is a well known global phenomena. But this does not mean hands-off appraoch.

Regards,

Vitalis



Also the aquistion cahnges be prohibitive, and to make the cost 




________________________________
From: wesley kirinya <kiriinya2000 at yahoo.com>
To: volunga at yahoo.com
Cc: ke-users <ke-internetusers at bdix.net>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Sent: Sun, April 25, 2010 1:30:26 PM
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Fw: [ke-internetusers] at inflated shs 20 billion, let's just forget 'Number Portability' ever benefiting consumers


Any word on this one... o_O?




--- On Thu, 4/22/10, bitange at jambo.co.ke <bitange at jambo.co.ke> wrote:


>From: bitange at jambo.co.ke <bitange at jambo.co.ke>
>Subject: Re: [kictanet] Fw: [ke-internetusers] at inflated shs 20 billion, let's just forget 'Number Portability' ever benefiting consumers
>To: "Walubengo J" <jwalu at yahoo.com>, kictanet-bounces+bitange=jambo.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>Cc: "ke-users" <ke-internetusers at bdix.net>, "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010, 10:03 PM
>
>
>Walubengo,
>CCK is better placed to respond to this.
>
>Ndemo.
>
>Sent from my BlackBerry®
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:11:08 
>To: <bitange at jambo.co.ke>
>Cc: ke-users<ke-internetusers at bdix.net>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>Subject: [kictanet] Fw: [ke-internetusers] at inflated shs 20 billion,
>    let's just forget 'Number Portability' ever benefiting consumers
>
>_______________________________________________
>kictanet mailing list
>kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
>This message was sent to: bitange at jambo.co.ke
>Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ke-internetusers mailing list
>ke-internetusers at bdix.net
>http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
> 



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20100426/0cef564a/attachment.htm>