@Areba,
Agreed with Point (a). No one should be punished for being dominant, unless they abuse the dominance.
Agreed with Point (b). Abuse of dominance is already defined in KICA laws and CA regulations (just google :-)
As for Kenya Power (& Darkness?), they are a legal distribution monopoly, though there has been attempts to change this. More like what we had during the Kenya Posts & Telcoms days.
I think what Ngigi and I have tried to do but failed miserably, is to try and raise the conversation above 'bashing' or 'protecting' Safcom. That really is not the point.
The point is that as a country we have a single-point of failure, when it comes to mobile money or internet services (yes there are options, but not effective options in terms of geographic reach & depth, as well as social scope and scale).
We can chose to pray and hope that the single point of failure, never fails; or we can play the devil's advocate and think about what Kenyans will do, when and if the single point failure does fail - as it did recently.
It's called risk-management at a national level. It is an agenda that perhaps the National Security Council should be having. Not small timers like me, Ngigi, Ali, Areba et al :-)
walu.
nb: am not closing the debate, I am just saying lets look at it from a macro rather than a micro level.
From: Collins Areba via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
To: jwalu@yahoo.com
Cc: Collins Areba <arebacollins@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Safaricom may face sanctions over network outage
I think we are missing the point if we do not look at what impact this "dominant" business is all about. I would posit that:
a) There is / should be nothing wrong with being a dominant player. It is a state one can exist in by virtue of their sheer scale, and one should not be punished for being dominant.
b) The real problem here would be ABUSE of dominant position. Abuse should also be clearly defined, I believe creating an atmosphere of growth of one's competition should never be the responsibility of the dominant player. As long as they act within agreed rules of engagement.
I still need to see anchoring legislation defining and supporting market dominance, and the impact of one being declared as such. I would love to, for instance understand if KPLC, a listed company, making profit for shareholders is also listed as dominant.