I've been disturbed by the Airtel's claims that Safaricom is dominant. I am no apologist for Safaricom but would not defend the claim that I admire how organised they are. In order for Airtel's claim to be sustained, they would have to show that they has been equally competitive. They would have to show that it is primarily due to Safaricom's supposed dominance and not their lack of innovation that has let to them being uncompetitive. I think that is a very tough call for them given than they have changed hands thrice (Kencell to Celtel to Zain to Airtel). They would have to show that these brand changes have not had any adverse effect on their market position. Airtel is a pan-African corporation and it could also be the case that their market strategy is homogenous and disregards local cultural differences (given that Kenyans have 'peculiar' habits). I am not aware that Airtel (or any of its previous incarnations) has ever returned a remarkable profit. I only recall once seeing mention of Ksh.64 million profit in either 2006 or 2007. There are serious consequences riding on this decision. For one, a verdict of Safaricom being dominant will communicate to the market that there are size limits that the government should impose on corporate growth, which could keep multinationals at bay. It will be very interesting to see what the relevant authorities rule. If anyone has information to the contrary on the above, I stand corrected. -- Regards, Paul K. Korir, PhD +353 86 224 19 66 *Ordnung muß sein*