edit: Can someone explain the dv? So people are in favor of random abbreviations?
Thats not fair. I came to the comments after reading the article to learn more about the article. I think its considered poor quality to make a comment like ADF is the worst. Without referecing what ADF is first, or without being referenced in the article.
Replacing "MVNO" with "cell service provider," and perhaps adding "that piggybacks off existing infrastructure," would've helped in keeping focus on the main point.
Having to take away your focus from the discussion is only an impediment in this situation.
If the telecom discussion ventures into specialized territory, then it is fine if the non-telecom people have to do some research to follow along.
In this case, though, if the words "mobile virtual network operator" are written out I think most HN readers will be able to figure out what they mean in the context of the comment without needing an external reference. There wasn't really anything going on that a non-telecom person wouldn't be able to follow, except for the expansion of the acronym.
It doesn't require research to make the comment understandable in this case. It just required mindless expansion of an acronym. Making multiple readers all do the same mindless task to understand the comment is inefficient.
There is a widespread, long established, endorsed by many style guides convention for handling this in technical writing: write out the term in full the first time, followed by the acronym in parenthesis, and then use the acronym in subsequent uses. I can see no reason to ignore this long standing convention in this particular case.
(For purposes of that convention, I think it would be OK to consider replies to a comment to be part of the same document as the comment, so if the commentator write "mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)" once, replies could use a bare "MVNO").
I subscribe to the Elon Musk school on acronyms--avoid at all reasonable costs [1]. That said, expanding "MVNO" to "mobile virtual network operator" does nothing for the discussion. If you aren't familiar with the former, you won't be with the latter.
Repairing the original sin of calling such virtual networks MNVOs post hoc is simply more friction than going along with an agreed term.
[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-boss-elon-musk-threatened-dras...
When an acronym is in common use, not using it will cause trouble for people who are used to it.
As long as it's something easily googleable, it really doesn't seem like a big deal either way. If you don't know what MVNO stands for, it'll take two seconds to find out. This does not apply for cases where there's lots of different meanings, or the acronym is spelled the same as a common word.
I really don't see the downside of not expanding it once, unless you're trying to avoid educating people.
"MVNO" has none such.
Oh the irony! :D
I just want a pipe.
Mobile providers don't work like that though. Even when roaming international, there is a tunnel back to your home provider. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPRS_Tunnelling_Protocol
Reseller you mean.
Example: I have spoken to the Harbor Mobile founders and they figured out a loophole in signing up regular T-Mobile customers to the business plans. It allowed them to offer plans ~20% off typical postpaid rates, and all they had to handle was billing. They started things with a simple Wix site. T-Mobile has since blocked them from signing up anyone new to this type of plan, likely because the plans got quite popular on deal forums.
While providing unlimited data? MVNOs seem to generally charge $10/GB, and I assume there's a reason for that.
Elsewhere it's mentioned that they'll take advantage of their xfinitywifi hotspots. Maybe that's enough to bring their cellular traffic down to a level that this would pay for.