NCC Releases New Draft Business Rules for MVNOs

The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) has released a new draft document called the Business Rules for Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs).

The new document, known as Version 2.0, updates older frameworks to make the mandatory duties of MVNOs clearer and to legally resolve business problems in the telecom industry.

The main goal of the rules is to create fair, legally binding guidelines for both the MVNOs and their host networks. The NCC wants to stop delays when new MVNOs try to join the market.

By opening up the market to more companies, the Commission hopes to increase competition, leading to better service quality, more choices, and affordable prices for everyday customers.

Under these rules, host networks are legally blocked from using complicated technical setups or slowing down agreements to stop new MVNOs from starting their businesses. At the same time, MVNOs must stay strictly within the exact legal limits of their specific business licence.

This Version 2.0 update introduces stricter controls to prevent the host operators from acting unfairly toward MVNOs. The new rules include:

No Excuses for Saying No: If a host network decides to reject an MVNO, it must send a fully explained, written rejection to both the MVNO and the NCC within 20 days. The update strictly states that internal company issues, corporate restructuring, or a host’s own network expansion plans cannot be used as an excuse to delay new MVNOs. Both sides must sign their final business agreement within a maximum of 120 days from the start of the request.

Strict Deadlines to Stop Host Operator Delays: In the past, host networks could cause long, open-ended delays during negotiations. The new rules set strict maximum timelines. A host network must confirm they received a request to connect within 10 days. They must provide a full technical and business readiness answer within 20 days.

Table 1: Operational Timelines

Official Starting Prices for Fair Competition: To stop large networks from charging excessive prices that crush MVNOs, the NCC will now set a standard “Benchmark Selling Price” for voice calls, internet data, text messages, and USSD services. This price serves as the official regulatory starting point for calculating profits.

Strict Rules on Fees and Costs: When calculating the profit to be shared, companies are prohibited from adding hidden fees. They can only subtract basic, verified costs, like connection fees for voice calls and wholesale bandwidth costs for internet data.

Modern Technology and Fraud Rules: The update adds clear rules for digital eSIM management and remote customer sign-ups. This ensures MVNOs can register new customers online while following national identity and security laws. Additionally, host networks must include clear rules in their information packages to target and prevent telecom fraud, such as illegal call masking and SIM boxing.

MVNO Pricing Framework: a specific tiered guide for revenue share arrangement between the MVNO and MNO, based on the work each tier performs.

Table 2: MVNO/MNO Pricing Framework

Permitted Role: Service-based MVNO

May Own/Service Layer: No service-layer ownership for core service delivery; may own brand, Limited Tariff Customer Relationship Management (CRM,) and content.

May Own/Switching/Interconnect: No

Retail Service Position: Retail service provider; may integrate directly with HNO or via Tier 4/Tier 5.

Key Limitations: No spectrum, RAN, switching/interconnect, numbering ownership or direct HNO integration for live service delivery unless expressly authorised by the Commission.

Permitted Role: Simple-facilities MVNO

May Own/Service Layer: Yes including SIM issuance, intelligent network, EIR/HLR/AuC/HSS billing and customer platforms within licence scope. VAS applications, hosting and SMSC only where lawful.

May Own/Switching/Interconnect: No

Retail Service Position: Retail service provider; may integrate directly with HNO or via Tier 4/Tier 5.

Key Limitations: No spectrum, RAN, switching/interconnect; must obtain numbering through Tier 4 or Tier 5 host unless expressly authorised by the Commission; no aggregator role.

Permitted Role: Core-facilities MVNO

May Own/Service Layer: Yes

May Own/Switching/Interconnect: Yes

Retail Service Position: Retail service provider; may integrate directly with HNO or via Tier 4/Tier 5.

Key Limitations: No spectrum ownership; no aggregator license; shared rural coverage and other functions remain subject to license and approval.

Permitted Role: MVNE/MVNA

May Own/Service Layer: Yes enabling, aggregation, OSS/BSS and shared platforms for lower tiers.

May Own/Switching/Interconnect: Yes

Retail Service Position: Primarily wholesale/enabling; may host or enable Tiers 1-3; direct retail restricted to unserved or underserved regions only, in the capacity of a Tier 3 operator.

Key Limitations: Not a general retail MVNO; must not exceed license scope.

Reflecting on the operational timelines, they are actually close to standard expectations for any MNO that operates a functional wholesale division. In many markets, timelines are even tighter, as there is no 10-day buffer necessary to read and reply to a letter.

Their processes are designed for immediate engagement: the access seeker submits a formal, standardized Request Form, and the host must acknowledge it by return mail without undue delay.

Because they maintain a pre-defined Reference Offer where the main technical and commercial terms are established and published, the MNO is effectively wholesale-ready before the request is even submitted.

If an MNO struggles to meet these windows, it is because their wholesale division lacks the necessary standardized interfaces, pricing models, and dedicated workflows.

The new NCC rules simply force MNOs to adopt standards for wholesale readiness and prevent the stalling-by-design tactics seen in other markets, which have historically paralyzed market entry.

Regarding the 120-day negotiation limit, it is quite generous, it could comfortably be capped at 90 days.

Furthermore, given the number of MVNO licensees (46), the NCC should implement a capacity safeguard. I.e. the MNO’s obligation to perform technical implementation could be capped at two concurrent projects.

In that way, if a specific integration exceeds 12 months, that project should no longer count toward the MNO’s two MVNO project capacity limit. This prevent a single, slow moving integration from creating a bottleneck, ensuring that complex long-running projects cannot be used to block the onboarding of new, faster-to-launch MVNO partners.

A significant, recurring oversight in NCC’s regulatory framework is the attempt to license Mobile Virtual Network Enablers (MVNEs). There is a reason why no other country in the world licenses MVNEs, it is a fundamental category error.

An MVNE is an upstream B2B technical service provider. It has no direct contact with end-users and provides no public telecommunications services itself. By attempting to force these infrastructure providers into a public telecommunications licensing scheme, the Commission is trying to regulate a layer of the value chain that is inherently unsuitable for such oversight.

The practical reality is that you cannot and should not license an MVNE. The current framework proves this by creating a self-inflicted bottleneck.

For example, technology providers like Huawei in Nigeria have offered to enable several MVNO licensees, effectively acting as an MVNE, but they don’t have a NCC MVNE license.

Similar, there are already MVNOs operating using external partners as MVNEs – which is the standard worldwide. They don’t have a NCC MVNE license, and the NCC has done nothing about it.

This highlights the absolute absurdity of NCC’s MVNE license, with some MVNEs investing in, complied with, and paid ₦200 million ($146,000) for a NCC MVNE licenses that serves no practical purpose –  a license they should never have needed in the first place.

This has created a shadow market where MVNOs partner with unlicensed MVNEs and platform providers while those who adhered to the failed regulation of NCC are left with the bill.

While the Commission’s licensing process remains an irrelevant obstacle. The Commission’s current approach creates a binary of failure, they must either crack down on all unlicensed MVNE partners which would go against all standard and effectively kill the MVNO market – or admit that licensing MVNEs is a structural error and abandon the requirement entirely.

Stopping the licensing of MVNEs is the only path forward. Technology providers should operate as standard commercial vendors, not as regulated entities. This would immediately remove the artificial barrier to entry, allow for a fluid and enabler-driven ecosystem, and end the innovation inertia in the Nigerian MVNO landscape.

If the NCC persists, it would logically follow that they must also tell Linux, Windows, Dell, HP, and other system providers that they need an MVNE license in Nigeria as well. It is a visible stain on an otherwise good MVNO framework.

To make sure everyone has a say before these laws take effect, the NCC is asking telecom companies and members of the public to read the document and share their ideas. Written feedback must be submitted to the Commission by Monday, June 29, 2026.

The NCC will also hold a public meeting to discuss these rules on Thursday, July 9, 2026, at 11:00 AM.

The full document (PDF) is available for download on the official website at www.ncc.gov.ng.