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.
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").
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.