Re: [kictanet] [Fibre-for-africa] RE: The tables are turned
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.
What is more interesting is the fact that Safaricom is 60% owned by Telkom Kenya which is fully owned by government that means that the mobile operators have become so powerful that the combined years of PTT operation and their political forces cannot turn the tables except the mediation of the regulator. This confirms Russell Southwood's recent story of the emergence of the mobile operators as the new incumbents of our time.
May be one good thing is the fact that the mobile incumbents are so powerful that not a combiantion of PTT operation and political forces can impact them except the court of the regulator so the political leadership in some of our countries would now see reason to strengthen their regulators and make them independent enough to be the pivot to balance the weight of the mobile operators against their "cash cow" incumbents.
Eric here
Telkom Lodges SMS Petition Against Safaricom in Kenya
In the fight for control of Kenya's lucrative telecoms industry, competition is becoming a useful weapon in the hands of rival firms -especially those that need to play the catch-up game to remain in the race.
This market share war has become so intense that players are breaking all boundaries in the corporate rulebook.
Five months ago, mobile phone service provider Celtel took its bigger and only rival Safaricom before the market regulator, accusing it of playing unfairly in the market to the disadvantage of the consumer.
Now it is the national operator Telkom's turn to lodge a landmark complaint against its subsidiary -Safaricom.
In its letter to Mr John Waweru, the Communications Commission of Kenya director general, Telkom Kenya is accusing Safaricom of practising anti-competitive behaviour in the market -especially in the Short Messages Services (SMS) segment of the business.
Telkom says Safaricom has been blocking the exchange of SMSs between the two networks, thereby denying its customers access to key services that the national operator is offering such as the one that enables them to check their voter registration details with the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK).
"Telkom Kenya is concerned that Safaricom is engaging in anti-competitive behaviour and in essence abusing its dominant market position by introducing barriers to new entrants targeting SMS market segment," Telkom says.
Public attention was first drawn to the matter after some Safaricom subscribers complained that Safaricom was charging them for undelivered SMSs to Telkom Kenya's Wireless network. SMSs to Telkom network got an automatic reply indicating that delivery had failed yet the consumers were being billed.
Safaricom CEO Michael Joseph acknowledged that some of its subscribers had sent messages to Telkom Kenya during the test period and may have been charged erroneously.
He said that although the company was not billing SMSs to Telkom Wireless network between August 13 and August 27, some of its customers may have been billed. Safaricom later agreed to refund the affected subscribers.
Telkom says that on August 16, the two interconnectivity negotiating parties met and agreed on interconnection rate and a technical testing schedule.
During this period the parties also exchanged SMS test templates to be adopted in the tests. Safaricom has however not cooperated in facilitating the process, making it unable to commercialise the service.
The matter seems to have reached fever pitch after Safaricom introduced a voter registry query service similar to the one Telkom Kenya had rolled out after it won an ECK tender.
Telkom Kenya is complaining that failure by Safaricom to activate the SMS service is affecting its ability to use an innovative platform that delivers voter registry query services by utilizing the 460 numeric to access the ECK database.
Telkom Kenya says Safaricom acted maliciously in delaying to activate the SMS service only to launch a similar service.
"We are perturbed that Safaricom, having not been involved in the initial tender process is currently able to provide a similar services using the 460 prefix. This is a totally unacceptable anti-competitive behaviour," Telkom says.
Mr Joseph declined to comment on the matter saying it was already before an arbiter.
Telkom Kenya is the majority shareholder at Safaricom with a 60 per cent stake. It co-owns the company with the United Kingdom's Vodafone Plc which has a 40 per cent stake in the firm. (Source: Business Daily)
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"
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient's information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
Timothy Kasonde Kasolo, Africonnect NETWORK SUPPORT ENGINEER, Plot 59, Great East Road, Lusaka. Phone: Lusaka +260-1-232005 Mobile:+260-97-893922. E-mail: timothy@africonnect.co.zm www.africonnect.co.zm www.iconnect.co.zm
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
_______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa@lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa
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"
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
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"
Yes! Fierce (Consumer) Fairness Freedom fighter is part of my name;-) To be fair, there is nothing unusual about disputes in the sector. The law establishing CCK expected them and so also established the Appeals Tribunal under Section 102 of KCA 1998. Regarding competition, there is Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act, Cap 504, Laws of Kenya whose citation reads"An Act of parliament to encourage competition in the economy by prohibiting restrictive trade practices, controlling monopolies, concentrations of economic power and prices and for connected purposes" One may question the "ADEQUACY"of the Act to deal with today's ICT competition challenges which the drafters then could not have reasonably foreseen. However at the moment it is the only piece of competition legislation to rely on in that area. Better get back to talking IT now... Have you read ICANN IPv6 Factsheet? http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf or http://pdfdownload.tsone.info/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fannouncements%2Ffactsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf&images=yes In Kenya, only Swift Global and KeNIC are on IPv6... Bad news there and I am shift gear to enange ISPs... ;) --- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
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
=== 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
Dear Alex, How does the Act deal with competition regulation, Monopolies and price control, may be pointing me to those section of the Act would be useful or giving a URL or just pasting below? Thanks On 26 Oct 2007, at 12:28, Alex Gakuru wrote:
Yes! Fierce (Consumer) Fairness Freedom fighter is part of my name;-)
To be fair, there is nothing unusual about disputes in the sector. The law establishing CCK expected them and so also established the Appeals Tribunal under Section 102 of KCA 1998.
Regarding competition, there is Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act, Cap 504, Laws of Kenya whose citation reads"An Act of parliament to encourage competition in the economy by prohibiting restrictive trade practices, controlling monopolies, concentrations of economic power and prices and for connected purposes"
One may question the "ADEQUACY"of the Act to deal with today's ICT competition challenges which the drafters then could not have reasonably foreseen. However at the moment it is the only piece of competition legislation to rely on in that area.
Better get back to talking IT now... Have you read ICANN IPv6 Factsheet?
http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf or http://pdfdownload.tsone.info/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.icann.org%2Fannouncements%2Ffactsheet- ipv6-26oct07.pdf&images=yes
In Kenya, only Swift Global and KeNIC are on IPv6... Bad news there and I am shift gear to enange ISPs... ;)
--- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
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
=== 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"
Hi, perhaps since the tangent is way from the turned tables, could we carry on with the conversation off-list. Thxs On 10/26/07, Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
Dear Alex,
How does the Act deal with competition regulation, Monopolies and price control, may be pointing me to those section of the Act would be useful or giving a URL or just pasting below?
Thanks
On 26 Oct 2007, at 12:28, Alex Gakuru wrote:
Yes! Fierce (Consumer) Fairness Freedom fighter is part of my name;-)
To be fair, there is nothing unusual about disputes in the sector. The law establishing CCK expected them and so also established the Appeals Tribunal under Section 102 of KCA 1998.
Regarding competition, there is Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act, Cap 504, Laws of Kenya whose citation reads"An Act of parliament to encourage competition in the economy by prohibiting restrictive trade practices, controlling monopolies, concentrations of economic power and prices and for connected purposes"
One may question the "ADEQUACY"of the Act to deal with today's ICT competition challenges which the drafters then could not have reasonably foreseen. However at the moment it is the only piece of competition legislation to rely on in that area.
Better get back to talking IT now... Have you read ICANN IPv6 Factsheet?
http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf or http://pdfdownload.tsone.info/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fannouncements%2Ffactsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf&images=yes
In Kenya, only Swift Global and KeNIC are on IPv6... Bad news there and I am shift gear to enange ISPs... ;)
--- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
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
=== 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"
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...
participants (3)
-
Alex Gakuru -
Alex Gakuru -
Eric Osiakwan