Well summarised Mercy
On Friday, 25-10-2019 at 10:25 Barry Macharia via kictanet wrote:
Spot on Kanini
On 25 Oct 2019, at 09:42, kanini mutemi via kictanet wrote:
Unfortunately I am on the other end of @Adam’s POV. The law must
prescribe in the narrowest terms possible the uses USF should be put
to. I am reminded of a recent order from the President that the USF
funds be appropriated to fight cybercrime since the funds are idle.
Secondly, I am quite uncomfortable with expanding the uses of the USF
when we have no evidence that we have finally achieved 100%
penetration levels. The amendment should be tailored towards demanding
more transparency from the Authority, tightening reporting standards
and returns to Parliament.
Proposals on appropriating USF for capacity building especially for
Members of Parliament- I would also oppose those strongly. CAK has
other sources of funds besides USF – those can be appropriated for
those other purposes. Let’s dedicate USF to its original purpose
until everyone is online. Then we can talk about other extra-curricula
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 09:10, Adam Lane via kictanet wrote:
My opinion would be that a law should not prescribe how the USF should
be spent; instead the USF Advisory Council should be more
representative of both industry and beneficiaries to give better
suggestions on how the money should be spent both in terms of focus
areas, as well as in terms of implementation approach (and maybe it
needs more power to direct the purpose of the funds rather than just
advise). It is also crucial to have stronger representation and
engagement by ICT Authority, and maybe even Transport Authorities etc
to have better synergies. It shouldn’t be that one funds 1.2m
devices to primary schools, yet no-one funds internet to a single one
of those schools.
There should be a lot more transparency on what is discussed and
decided in those meetings and how the USF is spent; the CA’s
quarterly statistics are the perfect opportunity to also share on
progress of how many places have been connected, and how many people
have been using the network/services. No need to wait for annual
From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane
=firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Barrack Otieno via
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 8:08 AM
To: Adam Lane
Cc: Barrack Otieno
Subject: Re: [kictanet] KICA Amendments: Universal Service Fund use
Well said Twahir. That is why i have a problem with 10% of 18 billion
being allocated to Miscellaneous expenses. Ongeza Volume.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:03 AM Twahir Hussein Kassim via kictanet
USF is a good idea BUT unfortunately as we know things Kenyan; are
about _watu wangu_ or _kwetu. _I shared an analysis earlier on how
skewed the beneficiaries list was. If there was to be any sense on
legislating on this then I think legislating on how beneficiaries are
selected should be the thing. The very purpose of this fund was to
ensure areas where it didn’t make economic sense for telcos, were
covered. Seriously, what justification can we give to see areas that
have perennially been marginalised be AGAIN marginalised on what had
sort to level the ground for them. To name just a few counties with
their allocations against their area (km2); Turkana (0 for an area
71,598km2), Narok (2 for an area 17,921km2 ), Tana River (2 for an
area 35,376km2) compared against Machakos (69 for an area 5,953km2)
and Kakamega (40 for an area 3,034km2). It is baffling! And to say
that schools in the area were not e-ready I think is not a palatable
excuse! The fund should have sort to e-ready them!
Seriously as an Kenyan, I am ANGRY at what is there on the ground.
Have been visiting institutions over the past few days and what I see
is to say the least very heart breaking.
Sincerity to the people we serve is the much sort for _pishori _we
need to make this _biriani _(aka inclusivity) that we so badly need to
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:35 PM Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet wrote:
Thank you Barrack,
In another thread, you said “part of the USF funds ( i propose 5 %)
should be used for Capacity Building and Research for members of
parliament and other key stakeholders on emerging issues such as OTTs.
This will support Private Sector and Civil Society efforts. Academia
can benefit from the fund to do Research.”
Why would you propose the USF to be raided, while Parliament has its
See my response inline, for your other initial remarks.
On Thursday, 24 October 2019, Barrack Otieno wrote:
I think only 5% should be used to fund other objectives of the fund 10
% for miscelleanous in a budget is extraneous. There are many
interests salivating for the fund as we have observed in the recent
past. The objective of the USF is very clear and the fund should be
used to fullfill this fund. CA has whole department that can address
quality control issues hence we don’t need to legislate this. I think
Parliament should not be misused by selfish interests.
This is a very good observation, let QoS issues be budgeted and
handled within main CA budget. But how do you arrive at the 5% to fund
other objectives? You can imagine 5% of Ksh10B is Ksh500m.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, 4:38 pm Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet, wrote:
This is a continuation of the discusion on the proposed amendment of
The new amendments to KICA proposed by Hon. Elisha Odhiambo, MP,
published on March 15th, 2019, seeks to substitute sub-section (2) of
section 84J that deals with Universal Service Fund (USF), with
Communications Authority (CA) mandated to provide annual reports to
parliament on the utilisation of the USF.
(2) The object and purpose of the Fund shall be to
a) promote the availability of quality of service at just, reasonable
and affordable rates for all consumers;
b) increase nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services;
c) advance the availability of such services to all consumers,
including those in low income, and rural areas;
d) increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in
schools, libraries and rural health care facilities;
e) provide equitable and non-discriminatory contribution from all
providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting
universal service programs; and
f) support capacity building and promote innovation in information and
communications technology services.
(5) The USF shall be utilised by the Commission as follows
a) 6% shall be used for ensuring the availability of
telecommunications services to all consumers, including those in low
income and rural areas;
b) 20% shall be used for increasing access to telecommunications and
advanced services in schools, libraries, and rural health care
c)10% shall be used for furthering the other objectives of the Fund as
the Commission may determine.
The rationale of the bill is to prescribe how the USF is used and make
it mandatory for CA to report annually on its usage.
What are your thoughts on this new amendment? Does it cover all
use-cases for USF e.g courier and news services? Are there other
considerations you would want to be included in the bill?
kictanet mailing list