Telkom Kenya has fallen to the country’s fifth largest mobile operator, down from third place just two years ago, as persistent subscriber losses and infrastructure challenges have eroded its market position. According to Communications Authority data, Telkom’s subscriber base shrank to approximately 744,500 by December 2025, down from 1.34 million in December 2023, marking one of the sharpest contractions among Kenyan operators over that period.
The decline occurred even as the broader mobile market expanded. Over the same period, Safaricom grew to 52.3 million subscriptions and Airtel to 22.3 million, widening their lead at the top. Equitel and Jamii Telecommunications both overtook Telkom, with the former operating as the telecom arm of Equity Bank and the latter targeting data driven segments. The shift points to a market that is no longer just led by a dominant incumbent but increasingly defined by scale at the top and clear positioning among smaller players. Telkom has lost ground in absolute terms and slipped between these two ends of the market without a clear base to defend.
From an economic perspective, Telkom’s decline reflects the intense competitive dynamics of Kenya’s telecommunications sector, one of Africa’s most advanced and competitive mobile markets. Safaricom’s dominance, anchored in its network reach and its mobile money ecosystem M Pesa, creates a formidable barrier for competitors. Airtel has successfully carved out a position by combining lower pricing with improving coverage, adding millions of users since 2023. Smaller operators have survived by avoiding direct competition, focusing instead on specific segments where they can offer differentiated value.
Part of Telkom’s decline is tied to network performance. The Communications Authority’s quality of service data shows Telkom trailing competitors on call stability and availability, a gap that weighs more heavily in a prepaid market where most users can switch providers at little cost. In that environment, even small differences in reliability tend to translate quickly into churn, particularly among price sensitive users, a segment that Airtel targets aggressively. For consumers, the ability to switch providers easily means that operators must continuously earn their business; there is no loyalty premium for past performance.
Infrastructure constraints compound the problem. Telkom’s long running dispute with American Tower Corporation over tower access and outstanding fees has threatened site shutdowns and limited the operator’s ability to maintain consistent coverage. That tension has made it harder to sustain network quality or expand capacity at a time when rivals have continued to invest, reinforcing a cycle in which weaker service feeds subscriber losses, which in turn constrain further investment. For a telecommunications operator, network quality is not merely a differentiator; it is the product itself.
The dispute with ATC highlights the vulnerability of smaller operators that lease infrastructure rather than owning it. When payment disputes arise, the threat of site shutdowns creates immediate service degradation, accelerating subscriber flight. Larger operators with greater financial resources or owned infrastructure have more flexibility to weather such disputes or negotiate from positions of strength. Telkom’s inability to resolve the ATC dispute quickly has clearly damaged its competitive position.
Telkom’s market position has become harder to define. Safaricom dominates the premium segment with its comprehensive ecosystem. Airtel competes aggressively on price while steadily improving quality. Equitel leverages its banking relationship to offer integrated financial and telecommunications services. Jamii focuses on data centric users who prioritise connectivity over voice minutes or mobile money. Telkom, by contrast, appears to lack a clear value proposition that distinguishes it from these more focused competitors. Without a clear reason for consumers to choose Telkom, the default option becomes churn to another provider.
The implications for Kenya’s telecommunications landscape are significant. A five operator market with a clear hierarchy from dominant incumbent to marginal player is not necessarily unhealthy, but the viability of the smallest operator depends on its ability to find a sustainable niche. If Telkom continues to lose subscribers, it may eventually face a decision about whether to exit the market, seek a merger partner, or radically restructure its operations. The Communications Authority will be monitoring the situation, as a reduction in the number of operators could affect competition and consumer choice.
For consumers, Telkom’s decline means fewer choices in a market already dominated by Safaricom and Airtel. While Equitel and Jamii offer alternatives, neither has the scale to challenge the top two operators across all segments. The loss of a third significant competitor could reduce price pressure and innovation incentives, potentially leading to higher prices or slower service improvements. The Communications Authority’s role in maintaining a competitive environment may become more active if Telkom’s slide continues.
Telkom’s future will depend on its ability to resolve the ATC dispute, stabilise its subscriber base, and articulate a clear value proposition that resonates with a specific segment of Kenyan consumers. Without these steps, the operator risks further decline in a market where scale and differentiation are essential to survival.
