[kictanet] IEA position on CA's Analysys Mason Dominance Report

Fri Apr 6 21:24:57 EAT 2018

Dear Onesmus,Listers,Let me give a few comments on the article by the "Standard".
1. "Pay Higher Costs."     There is nothing new about this.In 1997,the then KPTC, a monopoly, was forced to raise its tariff for local calls in order to ensure level playing field for the then new entrants including Safaricom. It was then called "cost- based pricing" and "tariff re-balancing". In other words KPTC was required to have cost-plus tariff because being dominant then and also being vertically and horizontally integrated it was likely to make it very difficult for new entrants to compete by such tactics lice cross-subsidization.It was also required to carry out "Accounts Separation" so that no "Market Segment" subsidized the other.
2."Price Controls not Effective"    Unlike other sectors,the telecommunications sector in most countries has been a monopoly- at one time called "Natural Monopoly".It has a very short history of effective competition.One result of lack of effective competition is presence of dominant players.Without price regulation public will suffer.3.Sharing of Towers.  This is public policy issue.Indeed international best practice and especially due to negative environmental impact of proliferation of towers .In any case land is a limited resource and there are limited number of good sites for radio towers. In fact all operators should be required to share-it is our country they are polluting and this should be minimized as much as possible.

4. Promotions and loyal schemes:    These need to be properly regulated as they are tools cleverly used  globally by dominant operators to undermine competition to the long term detriment of consumers.

5 Finally Onesmus on your comment on: should CA license and “regulate”” on competition” at the same time?Let me add      (a) Licensing is merely a tool uesd by CA for market entry. Aftrr market entry CA is a referee to ensure that rules are followed and has to cordinate regionally and globally to ensure the operators work harmoniously with minimum or no harmful interference with each other.It is an intense full time job.Regarding competition,CA is required by law to "PROMOTE" not merely"ENSURE" competition.This is because of the special nature of telecommunication market  characterized by huge barriers to entry including  high front- end costs such as license fees,spectrum fees ,network sete up etc. Let me give just one example: If motor dealers met to discuss pricing in a country,this would be considered "price fixing"punishable under Competition Law.Yet telecommunications operators often meet to fix prices-so called"Interconnection Agreements" without being seen to commit any offence!

Apologies for the lengthy comment!
John Kariuki

    On Thursday, April 5, 2018, 1:47:58 PM GMT+3, Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek) via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:  

Dear All,

Greetings from the Cofek team!

We are requesting your kind response to the article below as carried by “The Standard” today. Your response would inform our view on the State of Consumer Protection Report on ICT sector in regard to this specific issue.We also hope that Mr Matano Ndaro, CA Director of Competition can also give us his take. 

By the way - should CA license and “regulate”” on competition” at the same time? Could it present a conflict of interest that the licensee of MNOs is also prescribing and enforcing competition? Kindly give us your feedback asap. 

You could soon pay higher costs for mobile services if the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) follows through with plans to introduce price controls in the sector, economists have warned. 

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) said yesterday the recommendations by UK-based consultancy firm Analysys Mason, especially on price controls in its study on market dominance laid the basis for tariff hikes. 

"Price controls are not effective and inconsistent with 20 years of industry liberalisation and most national economic policy," said IEA Executive Director Kwame Owino during a media briefing on analysis of the CA report on competition in the telecommunications sector in the country in Nairobi. 

"Reintroduction of price controls would be a major policy reversal.” The study presented early this year by Analysys Mason concluded that Safaricom has dominant market share currently standing at 70 per cent and 80 per cent in the mobile communications and mobile money market respectively and called for regulatory interventions. 

Among the recommendations was for Safaricom to share part of its tower infrastructure with other service providers for a period of five years at tariffs prescribed by CA. "Our analysis shows this dominance has been achieved because of the risk that firms have taken to invest in tower infrastructure," said Mr Owino. 

"Firms have different appetites for investment and compelling one firm to share infrastructure they’ve invested in at fixed prices is not defensible on economic grounds." 

The report had initially recommended Safaricom share its tower infrastructure with Airtel and Telkom in 14 counties where telecommunications infrastructure is lacking that were then halved to seven. 

Forcing infrastructure sharing among providers has also been criticised as only useful in redistributing income among existing players but stopping short of bringing costs down or improving product experience for consumers.   

The IEA boss further explained that some of the recommendations in the report could see the CA overreach its mandate as a regulator, stifling innovation and product differentiation among operators. 

“There is no policy justification to restrict the freedom of firms to engage in lawful marketing in any format,” said Mr Owino. “This is the most unreasonable proposal with no benefit to aid market competition but would harm consumers.” 

Analysys Mason had recommended the CA enforce a policy to limit Safaricom from promotions and loyalty schemes that can be replicated by other operators.

Kind regards,

Onesmus Mutungi

Program Assistant 

Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek)

Rehema Place, Block F Suite 45

P.O Box 28053-00200, City Square

Tel. +2540202615496, 3861718

Mobile: 0715555550, 0733180008

Email  : hotline at cofek.co.ke 

Web   : www.cofek.co.ke

COFEK – Restoring Consumer Confidence and Pride

SUBSCRIBE to #CofekBreakingNews  Send “Cofek On” to 40408

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
Domain Registration sponsored by www.eacdirectory.co.ke

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kariuki_jn%40yahoo.com

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20180406/5ab96c8e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 21749 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20180406/5ab96c8e/attachment.jpg>