Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1484959,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1484959/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 221,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba South, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Caroli Omondi",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "regulated by the financial services regulator as opposed to having them operate under pure telecoms regulators like CAK. It is very good that there is a proposal to separate those services through this Bill. Equally, the combination of the businesses that Safaricom is operating affects the general well-being and health of the entire sector. For example, in other jurisdictions, there are shared user facilities among telecom firms – signal transmission towers and other facilities. However, it is very difficult for another telecoms operator to venture into the Kenyan market and share those facilities. In India, such facilities are shared thus lowering the cost of service to the consumer. There are also inter-connection charges. We have had a big problem with connection charges. In Kenya, when you make a call from one service provider to the other, you are charged for using the infrastructure of the other company. That is what is called inter- connection charges. There is no flexibility even though the business is inter-connected across the networks of service providers. You cannot clearly separate the cost elements. To make matters worse, even inter-operability is limited. Customers feel trapped into a specific service. Hon. Temporary Speaker, I would really support this proposal. It is time we separated the businesses. Let M-Pesa stand on its own as a financial instrument. It can continue to use the backbone of Safaricom to transfer the money. However, as a banking service that offers money to people and charges interest rates, it should be regulated by the financial regulator. On Section 34 (a), I would like to recommend that even though there is justification for compensation where the quality of service is not up to par, we should not provide a fixed sum of Ksh10. It should be left to the regulator to determine the amount to be compensated. However, the compensation should be as a percentage of the applicable tariff. I think that is a better regulatory approach than prescribing Ksh10 as a matter of compensation. The Ksh10 being proposed today may not have the same value in another five years. As we say, the only good money is new money. Finally, I support the amendment that is proposed regarding the creation of a Universal Service Fund to support telecommunication coverage in underserved areas and in non- economically viable areas through subsidising operations costs of even private sector telecoms like Safaricom that venture in such areas. This would be a good approach. With those few remarks, I support."
}