Safaricom has objected to the Communications Authority of Kenya’s review of mobile termination rates and fixed termination rates, which would result in lower internetwork call costs.
Safaricom has objected to the Communications Authority of Kenya’s review of mobile termination rates and fixed termination rates, which would result in lower internetwork call costs.
The Communications Authority (CA) reduced the Mobile Termination Rates (MTRs) that local mobile phone operators charge each other for interconnecting customers from 0.99 to 0.12 shillings.
Kenyans would benefit from lower call rates across networks as a result of the market regulator’s review, compared to what is currently in place.
“The review was founded on the recognition that higher MTRs mean higher calling rates for consumers,” said Communications Authority Director-General Ezra Chiloba in a press statement.
Telkom Kenya and Airtel Kenya both applauded the directive. The directive will go into effect in January 2022. Safaricom, on the other hand, has filed an appeal with the Communications and Multi-media Appeals Tribunal, opposing the directive.
To determine termination rates, the regulator, according to Safaricom, should have used cost modeling rather than international benchmarking. The telco wants the matter to be classified as urgent because it will have an impact on the company.
“The applicant stands to suffer substantial and irreparable loss unless this application is heard and a stay of the decision is granted as soon as possible,” Safaricom claims in its lawsuit.
As a result, Safaricom requests that the tribunal issue an injunction preventing CA from implementing the cuts until the appeal is heard and decided. This could mean that Kenyans will have to wait a long time before the implementation takes effect.
Safaricom claims that the regulator ignored public participation, and that it was not given a chance to be heard and make representations before the final decision was made.
“The respondent (CA) adopted a procedure that was unreasonable and procedurally unfair in arriving at the impugned decision,” Safaricom claims in its appeal.