4 ms·

It's not clear to me why the big asset owning carriers would continue to allow MVNOs. At some point the cannibalization from their own businesses is going to ou

It's not clear to me why the big asset owning carriers would continue to allow MVNOs. At some point the cannibalization from their own businesses is going to outweigh the revenue from the MVNO.

e44858 3y ago
Maybe they don't have a choice: "in May 2000, legislation passed that required network operators with significant market power to open up access to their infrastructure." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_opera...
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I think this might be it: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-51/subpart-G/section-51.605 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B... I'm not sure if the large networks are called Local Exchange Carriers (LECs), but if they aren't I presume there are similar resale requirements for them anyway.
dgacmu 3y ago
They don't just allow them, in some cases, they own them.(ex: at&t owns Cricket). There's a lot of price discrimination happening to try to get people to pay their maximum price for service. For example, I'm on Fi with my android, but my wife has an apple watch with cellular connectivity, and the only game in town was to shell out for at&t.
paxys 3y ago
Plenty of reasons. - They are selling spare network capacity, and throttling MVNO traffic during peak usage times. - The existence of MVNOs means they themselves can target the mid-high end market and don't have to advertise cheaper plans on their website and under their brand. In some cases the big carriers themselves own MVNOs. - In addition to consumer facing MVNOs, these carriers also make a ton of money from operators of stuff like IoT networks, GPS trackers, vehicle manufacturers and really anything that needs internet access.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  They also roam less. It's not really that confusing that they would want to brand a lower quality service differently.
wmf 3y ago
I wonder if the value brands could be just as profitable due to less marketing and support.

It's not clear to me why the big asset owning carriers would continue to allow MVNOs. At some point the cannibalization from their own businesses is going to outweigh the revenue from the MVNO.

e44858 3y ago

Maybe they don't have a choice: "in May 2000, legislation passed that required network operators with significant market power to open up access to their infrastructure." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_opera...

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

I think this might be it: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-51/subpart-G/section-51.605 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B... I'm not sure if the large networks are called Local Exchange Carriers (LECs), but if they aren't I presume there are similar resale requirements for them anyway.

dgacmu 3y ago

They don't just allow them, in some cases, they own them.(ex: at&t owns Cricket). There's a lot of price discrimination happening to try to get people to pay their maximum price for service. For example, I'm on Fi with my android, but my wife has an apple watch with cellular connectivity, and the only game in town was to shell out for at&t.

paxys 3y ago

Plenty of reasons. - They are selling spare network capacity, and throttling MVNO traffic during peak usage times. - The existence of MVNOs means they themselves can target the mid-high end market and don't have to advertise cheaper plans on their website and under their brand. In some cases the big carriers themselves own MVNOs. - In addition to consumer facing MVNOs, these carriers also make a ton of money from operators of stuff like IoT networks, GPS trackers, vehicle manufacturers and really anything that needs internet access.

maxerickson 3y ago
They also roam less. It's not really that confusing that they would want to brand a lower quality service differently.

wmf 3y ago

I wonder if the value brands could be just as profitable due to less marketing and support.