Dear Alex, Thanks for the enlightenment, your submission below together with the pointers have being light. However, i think though we would like MJ to give us some more information i would like us to respect his right not to discuss such corporate matter if his company's policy does not allow him or the rules of engagement does not. This is not to say TK puttingt he information in the public domain is right or wrong but we have short supply of details on the processes that have lead to this. Haven said that i think MJ and his enterprise also knows the implications of not doing so but i think the ultimate outcome we all want apart from the intellectual excercise, is for such corporate commercial issues to be resolved best and to the advantage of we the consumers so over to you, Safaricom and TK. Eric here On 25 Oct 2007, at 21:47, Alex Gakuru wrote:
Hi Eric,
Unless containing illegalities or infringing on others' rights, I believe the Law of Contact gives agreements between qualified persons more weight than regulatory intervention or government policy for that matter. Regulatory intervention steps in when the parties cannot agree among themselves first and where the regulator cannot resolve a matter, then Supreme courts step in and pick it from there.
CCK helps resolve long-standing complaints or disputes only after several direct resolution attempts and, with respect to consumers, explores ways of assisting consumers that opt for litigation. http://www.cck.go.ke/consumer_center/
Business people know that by the time they leave court rooms, they are forced to bask quite of their torn underclothing in the open hence their preference to seek low-key "quieter" regulator and arbitrators to resolve their business competition kerfuffles.
Although I am yet to know where they are located (read FOI),the government recently announced the formation of an Office of Ombudsman (DAILY NATION 22/06/2007) "to deal with public complaints" for alternative dispute resolution - heralded as "an administrative move by the President that is purely geared towards addressing issues that have bedeviled Kenyans without nowhere to turn to" by a member of our consumer network.
Back to the issue at hand...
When disputants involve third parties, and the public through media, obviously a deadlock or stalemate was encountered somewhere breaking down their conflict management process. Therefore, I find it inappropriate to agree with Micheal Joseph and Peter on hushing up a matter already in the public domain, unless they agree and inform the public that they have both agreed to resolve the issue through mutually agreed arbitration and the choice of the arbitrator must not (or even be seen to) be biased.
When Edith asked Michael Joseph to enlighten us on those other issues, he said wished not to discuss in view of (print) media rather his proffered arbitrator and not burden regulator with the dispute. To me this raises a concern whether his preferred arbitrator could be considered unbiased or neutral considering that the matter had reached the regulator height. He appeared to advocate “reverse-driving” and without shedding light on the compelling ahead obstacle necessitating this action.
Add to all of this mix blaming of the media circumstances become even more suspect. If one has nothing to hide in *any* dispute why shut out and blame the media for printing the smoke (above the fires). Perhaps you understand why I appreciate professional journalist predicaments.
<snip> Those who equate journalism with such licensable professions as law and medicine misunderstand the nature of journalism. Journalism is founded on freedom of expression. It is also an open book. There is no need for licensing.
Every day is a licensing day for journalists because they cannot hide their mistakes. There is an old saying: "Doctors bury their mistakes, lawyers hang them, but journalists put theirs on the front page." http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp? premiumid=0&category_id=25&newsid=99397 <snip>
Either MJ enlightens us on undercurrents information supporting his arguments or they agree to agree or disagree through the press and what they intend to do next... But meanwhile, are all entitled to speculate on all sorts of most imaginative conspiracy theories.
I suspect I did not rescue you Eric, but I hope this adds something?
Alex
--- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
Dear Peter,
I also think this should be abitration after the two parties did not agree between themselves but one of them prefered to take it to the regulator whether rightly or wrongly but thats their choice. The regulator can then ask them to go abitrate. In Ghana when a similar situation happened between GT and IGH, the issue went up the regulator and the regulator said, thier next line of call after they could not agree was to abitrate and if abitration does not work then they come to the regualtor and if the decision of the regulator does not work then the courts comes in. Our regulations provide for such progression but i dont know about yours, may be Alex G. can again come to my rescue.
Your last issue boaders on dominate market share, now as far as i know Kenya does not have competition regulation but ideally that should take care of such growths in the market as it is in the EU. Am just reading a story of Microsft surcumbing to that regulation in the EU.
Eric here
On 23 Oct 2007, at 12:49, Peter Othino wrote:
Hi Eric,
I do agree Michael Joseph and the situation should be arbitration and not a regulator handling commercial differences in the field.
Looking at it on the reverse, the current Telkom Operation on their CDMA platform they are no different from a GSM provider yet I believe the licensing conditions were different this to me has no direct commercials but a regulatory aspect but I do not remember it being handled despite concerns raised. I do not believe that parties need to complain for regulation to be effected as that would kill the whole concept and drive about self regulation that is the ultimate desired position.
Yet again if a provider gets powerful for it is position in the market I believe it is part of the Matrix as this comes either as tangible or intangible value adds above the rest associated with the service delivered.
Thanks,
Peter Othino
-----Original Message----- From: Timothy Kasonde KASOLO [mailto:timothy@africonnect.co.zm] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:08 PM To: eadera@idrc.or.ke; APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants Cc: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: RE: [Fibre-for-africa] RE: [kictanet] The tables are turned
Hello, I think the media needs to be balancing the articles ....
Timothy
Michael,
It would help to hear your side of the story so we can all be informed.
We unfortunately do not have other sources of information at this point other than the media.
Looking forward,
Edith
-original message- Subject: [Fibre-for-africa] RE: [kictanet] The tables are turned From: "Michael Joseph" <MJoseph@Safaricom.co.ke> Date: 23/10/2007 10:53 am
What you have not mentioned whether the complaint had any merit and whether the Parties could not have resolved it between themselves rather than relying on the CCK to mediate every commercial dispute. There is much more to this than just the one-sided view quoted by the media but we have chosen not to try to resolve our disputes through the media.
Regards
Michael
CEO
Safaricom Limited
________________________________
From:
kictanet-bounces+mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces +mjoseph=safaricom.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Eric Osiakwan Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:27 AM To: Michael Joseph Cc: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] The tables are turned
Dear All,
We are really living in interesting times especially in the ICT industry because a few years ago, it was the mobile operators and ISPs who would be knocking on the doors of the regulator complaining and sometimes weeping at the anti-competitive practices of the imcumbent PTT towards them.
Today the tables have turned and in Kenya as per the story below, Telkom Kenya is rather asking CCK to put Safaricom in check because they are acting anti-competitively on the SMS platform against their CDMA operation. Five years ago, this would have being an "incorrect prophesy" but it has happen sooner than all would have expected.
=== message truncated ===> _______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru% 40yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"