Talk:Mobile virtual network operator

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Examples[edit]

This article uses examples pertaining to GSM technology only. Yet, 3 of the MVNOs given in examples do not even use GSM. Boost uses iDen technology, amp'd and Virgin Mobile use CDMA2000. Can we correct this to add more neutral information? Spinfire 06:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MetroPCS owns sections of the PCS band and I wouldnt consider it a virtual network operator. I vote to remove it from this page.--Wesman83 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a paragraph in the somewhere in here about the success of MVNOs in Japan. 67.182.214.160 (talk)

For Net10 Wireless, I removed "uses Cingular Wireless," because Cingular is not the only carrier Net10 uses. --Riley 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheapest" operators[edit]

Should we be doing price comparisions here, it seems a tad adverty to say cheapest provider -- Tawker 16:18, 16 May 2006

Success?[edit]

The article really should talk about the success and failures in the MVNO market. Mathiastck 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MVNOs vs Service Providers[edit]

Back in the early nineties, British Mobile phone service was rarely sold by the operators themselves, instead being sold by so-called "Service Providers", who would, like MVNOs, buy bulk airtime and sell it under their own brandnames. Many early GSM phones were SP locked, so, for example, a phone sold by Carphone Warehouse on a CW tariff that works on Vodafone's network wouldn't work with a SIM sold by (erm, I forget the other SPs) XYZ Telecom that also happened to use Vodafone.

These are clearly the forerunner to MVNOs, and indeed many operators that are apparently MVNOs are actually operating exactly as companies like Carphone Warehouse did in the 1990s. Is it completely fair to describe Virgin as being the first? How does a modern MVNO differ from these early virtual networks?

Virgin not the first successful MVNO[edit]

In the US, Consumer Cellular has been around since 1995 and resells ATT/Cingular to this day: http:///consumercellular.com--LanceHaverkamp 11:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC) REALLY??? WOW. I just found about about them like a year ago. Usualy I hate advertising on Wikipedia and would probably report, but for this page it to only seems appropriate but it actually educates the public to more companies and how or why they work. I thought the only reason consumer cellular wasn't as big as at&t was because it catered to old seniors who used flip phones and didn't use data (and wanted unlimited talk and text). If its like cricket, boost mint etc I don't get how these companies don't dominate the cell phone industry. Why would anyone pay version, at&t or t-mobile directly when its soooo much more expensive, and also they usually charge huge dees were as MVNO's are known for either no fees (and taxes included) or really really small extremely reasonable ones like $1-a few dollars (for 911 calling or sales tax)[reply]

Which also shows that Talking Drum was not the first MVNO, although the definition of MVNO may be sufficiently unclear that no "first" can be agreed upon. Matt73 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An[edit]

"an MVNO" and "an M2M" should be "a MVNO" and "a M2M" -- 89.110.149.90 07:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: An MVNO[edit]

'An MVNO' is correct. 'A MVNO' is not gramatically correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.189.236.16 (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The introduction needs to be simplified[edit]

The a/b/c structure of the first paragraphe is ... unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.193.189 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 April 2007

MVNOs in the World[edit]

"Examples of a non-consumer MVNO being Wireless Maingate and white, M2M data based MVNOs." Sounds racist. Justbeingmyself (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Bankrupt companies[edit]

Many of the MVNO's/MVNE's are already bankrupt (e.g. 6G MOBILE). It would improve the article's clarity if these links were removed. (Frederikschutte (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

I've removed a significant amount of text from this page that seems to be entirely copypasted from http://www.prepaidmvno.com/definitions/ and http://www.prepaidmvno.com/definitions-2/mvno-classifications-types/. As far as I can tell that text was just randomly added several years back and has been more or less untouched since then. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising?[edit]

The "External links" section feels like advertising. Paul Koning (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone include why the big 3 in the United States do this?[edit]

I've noticed, cricket and NOW Ryan Renolds new investment company mint mobile (actually uses t-mobile towers). So if the price is amazing, and service is reliable why do the big 3 do this? There undercutting themselves. Is this like a sabotage move where they offer these services to these companies but make them poor quality so customers don't continue using them and go back to the big 3? or is this the big 3 assuming that if they don't have smaller companies that offer their services then those people won't use cell service at all. For the life of me, I have no idea why these companies do this? there much cheaper than their direct service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.154.97 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]