Regulator can do much better but...

I get the feeling that mobile and Internet providers in Kenya are failing to keep pace with the growing number of subscribers.

Could it be that the providers are confused as to whether the swelling use of their service is just a temporary peak or an opportunity to scale up?

In the past month, users suffered dropped calls, poor Internet access and delayed delivery of messages.

While customers rightly raised complaints with their respective providers, my bigger concern was:

How about the regulator’s voice in all these? Shouldn’t the regulator be concerned about the quality of mobile communication?

The Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) has vastly improved from the earlier days when it was located on Kijabe Street, Nairobi.

It has managed to negotiate a working agreement among the providers to make sure they do not short-change one another.

But the organisation, like many other government bodies, gets slowed down by red tape; this in addition to the political quagmire that makes appointments to such state corporations quite an uphill task.

Further, there will often be conflict of interest when the regulator is not wholly independent.

In our case, the regulator is a government body that has shareholding in not one but two mobile communication providers.

For comparison purposes, in 2011, the Zambian Information and Communication Technology Authority (ZITCA) was at war with providers over quality of services, how customer complaints were handled, and also over new services that were preventing people from filing complaints. In the end, it stamped its authority, and that led to improvement of services.

In Kenya, some providers will drop your call if you complain a lot. In this regard, CCK should have an open and active channel that receives complaints from consumers of communication services.

Further, the regulator needs to take punitive measures against errant providers who are unable to adequately meet the needs of their subscribers, or who are too intrusive, such as those in the habit of sending unsolicited and unwarranted text messages that advertise all manner of products, services, or features without even caring to first establish the profile of the subscriber.

Then there is the monitoring aspect of the regulator. My understanding is that the regulator monitors inter-connectivity, quality and even commercial affairs to ensure that the providers are playing fair and delivering quality services.

If a network is congested, the regulator should be aware of it, and they should advice the concerned service provider to scale up so as to accommodate all their users.

The big question is: Why isn’t the regulator pushing service providers to always give quality service?

It comes back to the government. If it acts against mobile companies in which it has no shareholding, it could be accused of favouritism.

If it decides to act against everyone, then there could be “domestic” repercussions. The regulator might find itself looking for a new director general.