What’s left of opportunities for MNOs?

stein@opensky

This is the time of year when every self-respecting consultancy company makes predictions for the year to come (i.e. 2026 just now at the starting gate). I will not try to predict much myself – but rather than writing long articles about specific themes (which I have done too often recently), I am issuing a set of short commentaries about various topics that have triggered or still trigger me. This is my last one for now (not too short though) - on operator business models and what’s left of opportunities.

Having been an operator for 30+ years and also having been engaged with the GSM Association for 15 of them, I have heard the mobile operators whining about new entrants, big tech and “Over-The Top (OTT)” players eating into their business models for two decades or so. There are many reasons for this, partly due to the operators themselves and partly due to new entrants and the regulators. Some reasons include the following:

1. The operators continuously improved their networks and made them so good that OTT services function very well on top of the networks.

2. The app ecosystem that has taken off since the iPhone – partly leaving operator voice and SMS redundant – and also turning the mobile phone into a universal device with your full work or private life in it, independent of the operator.

3. Although roaming has been one of the key success factors in making GSM and later “G”s global standards with ubiquitous service, the operators exploited roaming with extortionate prices – so that regulators stepped in and regulated it.

4. The net neutrality lobby worked hard for regulation allowing open access to networks and limiting two-sided business models.

5. Every new “G” has opened up the ecosystem more – allowing new entrants to compete with the operators (refer picture below).

A further reason is that mobile operator business is a multi-local business - and that interoperability requires multi-commercial agreements with multiple specifications. Although the GSMA for many years has done a very good job in facilitating and administering such agreements, roaming and interoperability are very slow processes and take time. Global big tech companies handling everything at global level and not needing interoperability can move much faster.

So, to the topic at hand, i.e. on operator business models and what’s left of opportunities. Ever since 2G, operators have made money mainly from B2C. This is still the case, but the fact is that 5G as well as 6G are mostly focused on B2B – so the challenges will not decease going forward. In other words, operators need to capitalize on B2B in addition to B2C. The only problem is that they are not so good at it and other ecosystem players probably do it better. B2B also often requires tailored solutions which do not scale like the operators are used to with B2C. The MNOs are betting on network slicing, which will have a cost, however, and it is also unclear if it will scale.

Around a week ago I also wrote a short commentary on Network APIs - which could be a potential opportunity for operators as well – and they are betting on it. From my perspective, this is the right thing to do – but it will not save the MNO business model - as there will probably only have a 1-digit effect on revenues however successful it will be.

Another potential opportunity for MNOs are private networks, however, not too many operators are placing their bets on it so far (e.g. building it and operating it – see e.g. my earlier article here and here – as MNOs have the required competence to do it – but so do their telco vendors). This could be because MNOs might prefer network slicing – or they are not rigged for another line of business. They might also just not like it – so they are hesitating – but if their telco vendors can do it, so can they. Operators are known to be dragging their feet – and other players are probably more agile.

While operators in the early days of 2G were competing on coverage, most developed countries have today soon full national population coverage (some also almost full geographical coverage like my home country Norway). What is still missing is rural coverage in many countries – and even more important in developed countries, indoor coverage.

Referring to my earlier article “Mobile Satellite Services on the roll”), MSS are on everyone’s lips these days, not only by Mobile Satellite Operators (MSOs) but also by (terrestrial) Mobile Network Operators. MSS integration could be a competitive advantage for MNOs, as fallback to satellite coverage in rural areas may be of interest to many customers (especially in developing countries). In my mind, however, MSS integration is mainly a competitive feature in developed countries – not so much a revenue generator. MSOs like e.g. Starlink, however, may also consider competing with MNOs, but this is not a topic here as this article is about MNO opportunities.

In addition to rural areas, the last coverage “notspots” are indoor coverage in buildings. This is a growing challenge as frequencies used for 5G, 6G etc are higher than for previous “G”s, with shorter range and poorer penetration into buildings – made even worse with modern insulation material and metallic window glass, keeping heat inside and mobile spectrum outside. The way to fix this is to build the coverage inside-out with antennas inside the buildings, which is costly. There are also extremely many buildings to cover. As new “G”s are expensive without significant revenues along with it, operators need to save Capex as well as Opex – and simply cannot afford to build such indoor coverage. This is why MNOs need to work with Neutral Hosts and give up a certain control of the value chain – but they will get increased traffic from indoors which is where people spend 80-90% of their time. See also my earlier article “Gigabit indoor 5G – who can do it?”.

In one of my latest commentaries, I commented on the Digital Networks Act (DNA) in Europe, “fair share” and potential two-sided business models -  which has been a contentious and difficult topic for MNOs for many years. The DNA planned published from 20 Jan 2026 and the MNO community has had high expectations around fair share etc for a while (see e.g. GSMA’s statement from earlier in Jan). Recently, Mobile Europe wrote: “Is the EU chickening out of enforcing the DNA for Big Tech?” – which actually seems to be the case. It seems that big tech companies (mostly from the USA) will be faced with a voluntary framework of best practices, overseen by the EU telecoms regulator group, BEREC, rather than legal obligations under the DNA.

So what business opportunities remain for mobile operators?

Mobile operator business has become tougher and tougher every year for decades. In the early days of 2G, it was almost so that a mobile operator license was a “license to print money” – something which has been weakened year-by-year ever since. The main business opportunity for MNOs has always been (and will still be) B2C in the mobile broadband space. Operators have for many years resisted becoming “bit pipes”, but it is more and more so. In summary, what’s left of opportunities for MNOs and their business models is limited – including potentially the following:

1. MNOs need to keep capitalizing on B2C and mobile broadband – and to keep increasing traffic. This will not impact on the bit pipe issue – but it is revenue – although with limited margins.

2. A specific area for increasing traffic might be to improve indoor coverage – which MNOs cannot do alone due to Capex challenges. This is why they need to work with Neutral Hosts and give up a certain control of the value chain – but they will get increased traffic from indoors.

3. Operators need to learn how to operate in the market with B2B. They seem to be betting on “network slicing” but it is unclear if that will scale sufficiently. They will also need to establish partnerships with more agile players and accept smaller revenue shares.

4. Operators are already betting on Network APIs - which could be a potential opportunity, but it will probably only have a 1-digit effect on revenues.

5. Offering to build and operate private networks for B2B customers may also be an opportunity, however, MNOs need to be rigged for it – and they may need to sort out relations with the main telco vendors which might also be doing it. If MNOs have already outsourced implementation and operation of their own networks, however, this would be a challenge as the competence might be gone as well.

6. I referred to MSS integration above, which many operators are looking into, however, this will mainly be a competitive feature in developed countries – not so much a revenue generator. See also this commentary by Kaneshwaran Govindasamy asking if “we are building a new revenue stream, or just a more expensive way to keep the customers we already have?”.

7. My last commentary about DNA (in Europe) and two-sided business models could have been a revenue opportunity for MNOs. Based one what seems to be the outcome in the recent DNA, however, it seems that “fair share” is out, however, it also seems that we can expect a long series of negotiations between MNOs and “OTTs” going forward – under the auspices of BEREC. Two-sided business models might be a revenue opportunity for operators, however, pending such negotiations (???).

What has not been commented on above is the cost side for MNOs. They all need to cut Capex and Opex – which is already too late for 5G, however, they might be able to avoid similar for 6G if the standard comes out right, i.e. not as a full replacement of the core and access networks. Another bet most operators are making today is on Artificial Intelligence (AI) – by which network cost savings are probably the most likely effect – although there could also be certain revenue opportunities.

Without getting into how AI will challenge MNOs further, this might be another ecosystem battle going forward (see e.g. this commentary from Sebastian Barros – Telcos are dead -  welcome to AICOs). This one will probably be up for debate – but anyway …¨

To summarize: It seems that operators have limited opportunities for increased revenues. They must keep doing mobile broadband and increase traffic, they must learn how to do B2B and network slicing – and they must make partnerships with other players in the ecosystem. They can also do network APIs, MSS integration and private networks – but revenue impact could only end up with a 1-digit growth. Any success on “fair share”, however, might have some more impact though – but the prospect is uncertain. Like it or not, cutting on the cost side will definitely be needed.

Having been an operator for most of my life, I am discouraged by what seems to be left of business opportunities for mobile operators – but there may be opportunities I don’t see. I hope I am right. MNOs will in any case need to continue with cost cutting. I may comment on GSMA and the wider mobile industry later ….