The pain of Zain continues as Zambia's Comms regulator CAZ, issues a 48hr ultimatum for the troubled operator to resolve it's network issues. And it's about time! I'm not sure about other countries, but Zain's Zambian network has been consistently under performing from day one! It's started off as Zamcell, then changed to Celtel, and now Zain, but the one thing that's remained consistent throughout is the company's poor network performance. The company has always been criticised for concentrating on rapid growth at the expense of quality, while the regulator was said to be too weak to protect consumers. CAZ must now walk the walk after that tough talking and show that users can have confidence that the regulator is there to protect their interests.
This is the editorial of the Times of Zambia:
"THE 48-hour ultimatum given by the Communications Authority of Zambia (CAZ) to Zain Zambia to resolve cellular phone network problems is welcome.
The two-day time frame in which the cellular phone company is required to put its house in order should be a wake-up call to all other utilities and services providers.
Every service that is provided to the end user,as is the case withphysical goods, comes at a price which the end user is obliged to pay for. In other words, it is a commercia ltransaction in which money is exchanged for the services rendered.
This implicitly infers contractual obligations on both parties.
Wheresuch a service is of such poor quality that the end use rhas partial or no access at all,it becomes an abrogation of the contractual terms under which the service is bought.
Abrogation of contractual terms in any commercial undertaking is a serious breach which can result instiff penalties. As a means of communication,thecellular phone has become a vital accessory for business.
Failure or difficulty to communicate at an appropriate time can result in huge losses through loss of business.
This isone of the reasons why, whenever there is any undertaking to provide a service, due diligence should be taken to ensure that the optimum standard of that service is provided.
There are also other inconveniences suffered by subscribers outside the business realm when they fail to communicate effectively and on time.
Zambians should not be denied the efficient international class service which is accessible to millions of other users of communication systems globally.
Evenwithin the continent, certain segments of the communications market are enjoying high quality service.
The urgency to provide effective infrastructure in all sectors of the economy has assumed added impetus when Zambia and other regional states position themselves to integrate trade commerce at the continental level.
This requires that on the technological level, Zambia moves in tandem with the rest of the continent.
The cellular phone provider knows the problem that has been causing network failure.
It is incumbent upon them to go to the root of the problem and ensure that the glitches are resolved once and for all.
This is essentially what the CAZ is asking Zain Zambia to do, and in the normal run of commercial business anywhere, this is the standard procedure.
In the same vein, CAZ could take another look at the nature of penalties that are applicable currently to any defaulting party.
Where theseappear not to bea sufficient deterrent, it would be a good ideafor the communications authority to introduce even stiffer ones."
Meanwhile, Telecoms.com reports that "speculation that Zain is looking to sell off its African portfolio was fuelled further this week, after it emerged that Swiss bank UBS has been appointed to help the firm assess its operations".
Cho-
ReplyDeletehas been on Zamtel 's neck, citing govt ownership as the cause of Zamtel's inefficiencies in service delivery, what will he say about Zains's poor service now?
Kwanunikwanu,
ReplyDeleteI think it is undeniable that government ownership of Zamtel has impacted the company's operations. Just last week, it's Managing Director Mukela Muyunda said partial privatisation will be essential for the revival of the company. In fact the Times of Zambia quotes him as having said, "partial privatisation was a serious option for the company's survival because that would be the main source of income."
I mean, those are serious lamentations about government ownership coming from the man at the helm of the company.
And to be fair to Zain, they have achieved far more in less than a decade of operations in Zambia, than Zamtel has ever achieved in several decades!
Nonetheless, the regulator itself should shoulder some of the blame for the poor quality of service users are experiencing, because there are license obligations which the regulator has all the power to enforce, but has not.
I am seriously hoping that this new threat from the regulator is not just hot air but the beginning of a new era.
Zedian
I appreciate yor perspective, but from a customers stand point the question is why is Zain a private company offering poor service?
ReplyDeletethere is a competitive market?
a regulator?
( though weak but a regulator by law and intent)
why is a competitive environment not resulting in better service for the customer?
"why is a competitive environment not resulting in better service for the customer?"
ReplyDeleteA very good question indeed. There may be several reasons, one of which could be that there may not be enough of a competitive environment to cause the players to respond to the market, which again the regulator could spot and attempt to resolve by licensing more players. And perhaps they did, with their attempt to introduce a 4th GSM wireless operator in the country, which unfortunately went nowhere but the courts. There is capacity for more players in the country, even virtual ones, the so called MVNOs.
In my view, Zain having a lion's share of the market does not consider the other players to be much of a threat and therefore dictates the rules. Some figures from the Zambian-economist website:
"Currently MTN has a subscriber base of just around 700,000 translating into a 15 per cent share of the market and far behind the market leader Zain Zambia at 78%. The hapless ZAMTEL's Cell-Z is at 7%."
In this sort of environment,a powerful regulator is key, otherwise we're heading back to a near monopoly.
Zamtel failed to seize the initiative with mobile services when they were the incumbent. They failed to spot the potential for mobile services as the communications service of the future, instead holding onto their miserable PSTN. I'm not sure whether it was due to a lack of skills, poor management, government interference or a combination of these factors.
However, Zamtel seems to have spotted the potential of fibre backbone networks and hopefully this time have seized the opportunity with both hands.
Basic problem with ZAIN is that network planning from a radio frequency point view has been very poor right from the start. This problem has been magnified as the number of subscribers has grown. The fact still remains that any GSM cell site can only support a set maximum number of subscribers. As the number of subscribers increases you either increase the number of cell sites or deploy some other capacity enhancement techniques. Otherwise your subscribers just have to get used to the now infamous message "the subscriber called is either out of coverage or has their phone switched off".
ReplyDeleteAlso expanding network coverage (i.e. installing cell sites in Shangombo and Chavuma) increase the overall network capacity but does not address local hotspots.
I could be stating the obvious!
The PANEL
Kwanunikwanu,
ReplyDelete"Cho has been on Zamtel 's neck, citing govt ownership as the cause of Zamtel's inefficiencies in service delivery, what will he say about Zains's poor service now?"
Its a fair question.
I would make three points :
1. We want ZAMTEL to improve regardless of the performance of other private sector companies like Zain or MTN. ZAMTEL is owned by GRZ and its losses are costly to the tax payers. In addition, an under performing ZAMTELs hurts our development in the long term.
2. I have always made it clear that the poor performance of ZAMTEL fosters increased dominance of ZAIN. As ZAMTEL fails to impose itself on our communication sector it makes way for ZAIN with 78% to bully its way around. We have no one but ZAMTEL to blame for ZAIN's dominance and inefficiencies that are now developing within ZAIN.
3. CAZ is a weak regulator. This we have discussed many times. I have always said that before privatising ZAMTEL it is important to make sure CAZ's regulatory powers are enhanced. The ICT Bill drafted in 2007 had some provisions on this front but it got delayed when various industry players could not agree. Let us hope the one to be tabled this month will solve some of these problems.