Safaricom changes to home fibre ToS

Thanks Mwendwa for the resources. I’m going to push back on your point on
using market share to define whether or not competition exists in this
market obscures a lot. When it comes to fixed lines what matters is where
the cable terminates near enough to you connect to. There are entire
neighbourhoods that are only served by a single provider. So my question
still stands about what the CA is doing to ensure more competition.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 21:47, Mwendwa Kivuva <[email protected]>

> Thanks Sidney for initiating this debate.
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 19:44, Sidney Ochieng via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>> Listers,
>> Not sure if you’ve seen the stir online of changes to the ToS with
>> Safaricom’s home offering.
>> Safaricom is destroying Home Fibre with new ‘Fair Usage’ Limits:
>> The response from the company has been disappointing in the extreme,
>> misleading with statistics and suggesting that it’s best customers are
>> thieves ,
>> never mind that working for home has lead to increased demand and use of
>> their services.
> That tweet certainly does not call resellers thieves. It calls them
> resellers.
>> All this is beside the point, at least for this forum, what I’m concerned
>> about this that if we didn’t have an eagle-eyed blogger looking out for
>> this, it would have been completely missed until it was already in place.
>> So I have a few of questions:
>> 1. Does the CA have any policies around ToS changes around services
>> under their purview and how they are communicated to users?
>> CA has a consumer and public affairs department. Here is what they have
> to say about ToC ( CA/CPA/CEP/B/05/2014 )
> Perhaps CA should update that information. It is 6 years old. But good
> information nevertheless.
>> 1. Should companies that run what could be considered critical
>> infrastructure be allowed to arbitrarily change their ToS to apply
>> retroactively especially if it’s to the detriment of their customers?
>> I hope lawyers here can help us with this.
>> 1.
>> 2. If customers choose not to accept a change in ToS what redress do
>> they have given that perhaps the provider is the only one available in
>> their area.
>> 3. Finally, given that we know this could all be avoided if there was
>> more competition in the fibre market, what is the CA doing to make it so
>> that we have more competition in that area? It’s concerning that Safaricom
>> seems to only option for home connections in several places
>> Determined by the market and economic forces. Just the other day,
> Safaricom was not in the home fibre market. What they have provided are
> more options for consumers. Numbers are stubborn facts. Fixed data
> subscription is as follows: Data source CA, July -September 2020 period,
> page 19
> Safaricom PLC 229,406 subscribers, 35.6% market share
> Wananchi Group (Kenya) Ltd* 202,237 subscribers , 31.4 35.6% market share
> Jamii Telecommunications Ltd 127,914 subscribers , 19.8 Poa % market
> share
> Internet Kenya Ltd 56,824 subscribers ,8.8% market share
> Mawingu Networks Ltd 11,087 subscribers, 1.7 % market share
> Internet Solutions Kenya Ltd 9,228 subscribers, 1.4 % market share
> Consumers are speaking with their wallets.
> As a policy discussion list, probably what we should be asking is what is
> the fair cost for certain broadband packages, and whether there is anything
> that can be really unlimited. Wearing my competent network engineer hat, I
> can tell you even at Safaricom, they don’t have unlimited bandwidth.
> Bandwidth is a limited resource to the extent of the network devices,
> network media, and cost of acquiring and delivering that bandwidth to your
> edge device.
> Best Regards
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

KICTANet Admin information

Related Posts

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.