On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Steve Muchai
<smuchai@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Kennedy Aseda <samskid5@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> We also do not have a policy where an infrastructure provider plays as an
> infrastructure provider and service providers run on their networks.
> Scenario is once the infrastructure provider lands the fiber (which you have
> paid for installation costs) they go ahead and offer your customer reduced
> prices.
>
> It would be better if we had the following:
> 1. Infrastructure Providers for GSM/3G services
> 2. Infrastructure providers for data infrastructure/Data Center Services
> 3. Infrastructure providers for FM/TV/DVB-T
> 4. Service Providers for GSM/3G
> 5. Service Providers for Data/Internet
> 6. Content Providers - Radio, TV, Data, etc
> 6. City council to do all civil works (trenching & ducting) to major centers
Good thinking.
Way back (around 2003/4)) there were futile attempts to get TKL to
"unbundle" local loop services and allow providers to co-locate
equipment at their exchanges. This could have been a great starting
point for the kind of setup suggested above.
All these efforts came to naught, given the then clueless regulatory
environment, competing vested interests within the industry and
TESPOK, etc. I'm sure the likes of Wash, John Gitau, Brian Longwe, Joe
Mucheru and many others would remember those efforts.
Unfortunately this has led to a situation where we have had some
providers cutting others' cables when laying their own (yes, this did
happen in at least one case I know of). TKL's existing copper, where
it works goes, to waste (there's tremendous unused capacity in some
areas) and is then replicated by multiple fiber runs. Yet lots of
people in this areas still can't get decent services while some areas
even within Nairobi remain underserved.
The rural areas? They're still off the map.
Regards,
Steve