Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 893222,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/893222/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 388,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba South, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Mbadi",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "If you look at the telecommunication sub-sector, you will find that we have had a number of issues. Kenyans have been complaining of expensive services, from making calls to sending money. As the Mover and Seconder have rightly put it, even if you look at the products that the mobile network operators have come up with, you will realise that they are very expensive. In fact, they come out as shylocks. The many products they advertise and Kenyans get into are operated as shylocks. So, what is bringing this about is near monopoly in this country. Where I find it a bit interesting is that the Committee fell short of doing what I wanted them to. I want to go straight to the Report of the Committee. It observed very well that Parliament enacted the Kenya Information and Communications Act in 1998, which we popularly refer to as KICA. This provides for the establishment of the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) currently known as the Communications Authority (CA). The mandate of the CA is given under the various sections of the law, but I want to restrict myself to what I want to canvass this evening. Section 23(2)(b) provides for effective competition among the operators. This is the work of the CA. Moving forward, Section 84(q)(r)(s) and (t) provides that the Authority shall ensure there is fair competition, identify any anti-competitive conduct in the market and carry out investigations in cases of unfair competition. Section 84(w) provides that the CA may, by a notice in the gazette, declare an entity to be a dominant telecommunication service provider. In declaring an entity to be dominant, the CA considers the market share of the entity being at least 50 per cent of the relevant gross market segment. If you go to Page 41 of the Report, the Committee has observed that whereas the CA has determined that Safaricom has more than the threshold required to determine it as a dominant player in the market, which is 50 per cent, in terms of subscribers, it is about 72 per cent if not more. In terms of revenue, I am told it has about 99 per cent control in the market. Therefore, in terms of declaring Safaricom as dominant in this sub-sector, the CA should have done this way back. I expected the Committee to be bold enough. They observed that as at June, 2018, Safaricom possessed a high market share in mobile subscription, money services, voice traffic and data subscription well beyond the statutory threshold for being declared a dominant player. To make the playing field level and more competitive we need to have Safaricom declared as dominant in the telecommunications sub-sector. In the recommendations, the Committee is a bit shy and I am wondering why it developed cold feet. My fear is that the CA has been held captive by Safaricom. They cannot declare Safaricom dominant. According to their own Report, in fact, the CA had commissioned a research to be conducted through a reputable firm and through that research, they came to a conclusion that Safaricom has passed the threshold. What is it that stopped the CA from declaring Safaricom dominant?"
}