Two NZ carriers propose shared radio network JV

New Zealand's two mobile carriers, 2degrees and One NZ, have proposed a joint venture that would fold their radio access networks into a separate operating company, Data Center Dynamics reported; the new entity would own, manage, and operate the antennas and base stations mounted on cell towers on behalf of both carriers. The proposal remains subject to regulatory approval, but the structure is already clear: a shared physical layer, owned by the two carriers, sitting beneath two independent mobile businesses.

Both operators would remain fully independent mobile network providers, competing on price, products, service, and innovation, while the pieces that stay in-house — spectrum management rights, core networks, fiber backhaul, and satellite — are the ones that generate differentiation. What moves into the shared vehicle is the physical layer: the towers, radios, and base stations that are expensive to build, costly to duplicate, and nearly impossible to turn into a durable competitive advantage.

The companies frame the proposal as an efficiency play, with 2degrees chief executive Mark Callander arguing that New Zealand is a challenging country in which to build mobile networks and that sharing infrastructure where it makes sense can deliver better coverage, greater capacity, stronger resilience, and faster access to new technology. One NZ chief executive Nick Judd pointed to sustainability goals, citing less duplicated equipment and lower energy use over time, and to faster access to future technologies such as 6G, while the carriers said the joint venture would accelerate 5G rollout, expand coverage, and strengthen network resilience.

Network sharing is spreading as operators look for cost-effective networks and try to limit duplicate infrastructure; the same week, Salt and Sunrise signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding to study sharing rural network infrastructure, as this publication reported. The Swiss pair's plan is narrower — rural and less densely populated areas — but the direction is the same: the radio network is turning into a shared utility rather than a competitive moat.

The two moves landed within days of each other, suggesting carriers in different markets are reaching for the same answer, though the scope differs — Switzerland is looking at rural areas, New Zealand at the whole RAN. The shared logic is that the radio network is a cost pool to rationalize, not a competitive weapon to wield — a distinction that matters for anyone underwriting digital infrastructure, because a nationwide RAN company is a bigger asset with a clearer revenue base than a rural-only patchwork.

For an infrastructure investor, the proposed RANCo is closer to a utility than a competitive play. It would have two customers — the two carriers — and those customers are also its owners, which removes the merchant risk of a standalone towerco and bakes the offtake into the ownership structure. Each carrier has a direct incentive to keep the network funded, and neither can walk away without rebuilding a national network from the ground up.

The boundaries of the JV are what make it work. Because spectrum, core, backhaul, and satellite stay with the operators, the shared entity is deliberately thin: it owns the radios, not the intelligence. RAN sharing cuts the biggest fixed cost of coverage — the physical plant — while leaving the carriers the tools they need to compete, and the fiber carve-out matters because the JV will not own the backhaul connecting its base stations, so fiber remains a separate competitive and investment battleground.

The harder question is governance: a company owned by two rival operators can deadlock, and the regulatory review will test whether the two sides can run a shared asset while battling for the same customers. The structure will be easy to draw and harder to operate, and the companies expect the joint venture to complete in the first half of next year, subject to customary conditions and regulatory approvals.

A shared RAN removes a substantial fixed cost of a mobile network without merging the brands, the spectrum strategies, or the retail offers — the right structure for a market the carriers themselves describe as hard to build in. The deal is a clean test of whether a shared physical asset with two committed users prices as infrastructure, and the way the carriers divide fiber backhaul, spectrum, and governance will determine whether it holds that pricing. Watch the operating agreement, not the announcement date.