Kenya has no net neutrality rule and no zero-rating regulation. Yet the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) now has an open docket in which those questions will quietly be settled. Airtel Kenya has applied for a Network Facilities Provider Tier 1 licence and an International Gateway Systems and Services licence, and the CA opened a 30-day public comment window on the applications, according to Techweez's report of the notice. The applications say nothing about net neutrality. They still matter for it.
What the licences would change
The Tier 1 licence would let Airtel own and operate national infrastructure, including fibre, towers, microwave links and data centres, and lease capacity to other operators. The gateway licence would let it route international voice and data traffic itself. Today it relies on infrastructure it does not own, and the licences would put it in direct competition with Safaricom, Telkom Kenya, Liquid Intelligent Technologies and Faiba. Both licences sit inside the CA's Unified Licensing Framework, which the CA's market-structure page describes as technology- and service-neutral, with 19 licence types across five categories, established in April 2026.
That is why the infrastructure question is a neutrality question. Traffic-prioritisation power belongs to whoever controls the routes, the interconnection points and the wholesale price of capacity. An operator that leases capacity to others is a wholesale supplier as well as a retail competitor. An operator that controls its own gateway decides how international traffic is handled.
The strongest case for a firm rule
The case for hard regulation is serious. Safaricom holds about 61% of the mobile market, according to Business Daily. In a market that concentrated, zero-rated bundles can work as a moat as well as a consumer benefit: an app that is free on one network but metered on another is hard to compete against. Critics of a permissive approach also point out that adding a second vertically integrated operator does not remove the incentive to discriminate. It multiplies the places where discrimination can occur. California's experience shows what a bright-line law looks like: its statute bars blocking, throttling, paid prioritisation and zero-rating, and the EFF is now campaigning against a federal funding condition that would require the state to stop enforcing rules on internet providers for 14 years.
Why a blanket ban is the wrong tool for Kenya
A California-style statute would still be a poor fit here, for three reasons.
First, Kenya's problem today is coverage and cost, not incumbents throttling rival apps. Zero-rated offers from both Safaricom and Airtel are, for many users, the cheapest route onto the internet. A blanket prohibition would remove them before any harm has been shown, and it would fall hardest on low-income users.
Second, the evidence of abuse is thin. In July 2026, the Competition Authority of Kenya rejected Airtel's predatory-pricing complaint against a Safaricom voice promotion. It said it had found no evidence that Safaricom abused its position, and that the promotion complied with the 90-day limit in the Kenya Information and Communications Act and its regulations. Whatever one thinks of that ruling, it shows that Kenya already has a competition tool that works on facts and case-by-case evidence.
Third, more infrastructure competition is itself the best neutrality protection. If Airtel can build its own network and gateway, every operator faces a credible rival that can carry traffic without asking permission. That is a structural remedy, and it works without any regulator having to inspect packets.
What the CA should do in this docket
The pro-competition answer is to approve the licences and attach narrow, testable conditions, rather than open a broad rulemaking on traffic management. The KICTANet overview of Kenyan telecoms regulation shows a licensing framework that defines tiers and spectrum but does not address open access, interconnection obligations or neutrality. Those gaps are where conditions belong. Three would do most of the work:
- Non-discriminatory wholesale access. Any capacity leased to other licensees is offered on published, reasonable terms, with no undisclosed preferential pricing for affiliated services.
- Transparency on traffic management. Licensees publish plain-language traffic-management and zero-rating terms and report them to the CA. Transparency is cheap, and it lets the CA and researchers spot problems early.
- A trigger-based review. If evidence of blocking or discriminatory throttling emerges, the CA can open a defined inquiry. This keeps intervention proportionate and tied to evidence.
The CA's own licensing procedures describe a process in which applicants are assessed against licensing criteria. Conditions attached at the grant stage are more predictable for investors than rules imposed after networks are built, and they cost the regulator less to enforce.
The comment window is the real decision point
The window is short, and comments arrive at the Director General's office with a copy to Airtel. Civil society groups, ISPs and content providers can use it to ask for the three conditions above. Silence has a cost too. If the licences are granted unconditionally, Kenya will have expanded operator control over routes and wholesale capacity without any commitment on how that control is used, and it will have done so without ever debating net neutrality. A precise, evidence-linked set of licence conditions would protect openness without freezing the affordable zero-rated services many Kenyans rely on. It would also be a better model for the continent than importing either a blanket ban or no rule at all.