One NZ and 2degrees are building a joint network Spark would have to beat

What they are actually asking for

New Zealand’s two smaller mobile operators have gone further than sharing towers. One NZ and 2degrees have jointly proposed combining their radio access network (RAN) infrastructure into a new, separately owned wholesale company that would own, manage and operate the active kit on mobile sites, then sell network services back to each parent under separate wholesale agreements.

This is not the passive infrastructure the industry already consolidated. Towers, land and power were carved out years ago. The RAN is the active layer, the electronics and antennas that connect handsets to the network. Sharing that means One NZ and 2degrees would run two retail brands on top of one physical network, competing on price, plans and service, but no longer on the underlying hardware.

Incoming One NZ chief executive Nick Judd said the proposal would deliver “real benefits for customers by enabling us to deliver better connectivity,” including “faster access to new technologies such as 6G, and improving overall network resilience.” One NZ would keep its spectrum rights, core networks, fibre backhaul and satellite. The deal needs sign-off from both the Commerce Commission and the Overseas Investment Office.

Why now, and why it is bigger than it looks

The timing is not accidental. Weeks earlier, Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith reshaped the competitive field. Cabinet approved renewing only 70% of Spark and One NZ’s spectrum in the 2600MHz band, freeing 30% for 2degrees when licences expire in 2028. The disparity it targets is real: 2degrees holds just 16% of total mobile spectrum against Spark’s 33% and One NZ’s 34%, with a Cabinet paper warning that large spectrum gaps constrain smaller operators.

Active network sharing already works here. The Rural Connectivity Group, a joint venture between all three carriers and the Crown, has extended 4G and 3G into underserved rural communities. The One NZ and 2degrees plan takes that logic national and urban. It also lands as the Commission itself has grown warmer to market-led sharing. In February 2026 it found tower sales to Connexa and FortySouth plus RCG sharing had “radically changed how mobile coverage is delivered in New Zealand” and opened the door to deregulating a 25-year-old co-location regime.

That sequence, tower consolidation cleared in 2023, then One NZ’s Dense Air spectrum deal cleared in 2024, points one direction. But active RAN sharing between two of three networks is a materially larger structural step than sharing steel and land.

The Spark problem

If approved, Spark becomes the only operator running a fully independent national RAN. That creates an asymmetric market, one standalone network facing a shared infrastructure bloc built by its two rivals. Spark has not yet publicly commented on the RAN proposal, but its stance on the spectrum reallocation shows where its head is at. Chief legal and regulatory officer John Wesley-Smith warned the reallocation “reduces spectrum available to serve customers” and reallocates capacity “currently serving those customers to networks with lower utilisation.” He also cautioned that auction uncertainty would make telcos pause or hold off on investment.

There is history worth remembering here. Even as 2degrees explored infrastructure sharing in 2020, its then-chief technology officer Martin Sharrock cautioned that “having a foundation layer of competing networks is important”. That is precisely the question the Commission now has to answer at the active layer, where the stakes are higher.

What it means for business customers

For telecoms buyers the case cuts both ways. The upside is genuine. Fewer coverage gaps where one operator has a site and the other does not, faster 5G and eventual 6G rollout, better resilience from a more robust shared network, and potentially lower wholesale costs that could reach retail pricing. For rural and regional businesses, the coverage argument is compelling, and the RCG model already proves the concept works.

The risk is subtler. If network quality stops being a differentiator between One NZ and 2degrees, competition collapses onto price and service alone. Good for short-term costs, but it can thin out investment incentives over time. Multi-site businesses that historically chose an operator on coverage grounds may find that distinction quietly disappears.

International precedent from the UK, Germany, Australia and Scandinavia suggests regulators generally approve these arrangements, usually with conditions on non-discriminatory wholesale access and transparency. The Commission’s real test is whether retail competition survives intact when two of three networks share the machinery underneath. Get the conditions right and this is better coverage at lower cost. Get them wrong and New Zealand ends up with a two-player infrastructure duopoly wearing three brands.

Sources

• One NZ and 2degrees launch bid to share mobile network infrastructure (2026-08-27)
• Goldsmith allocates mobile spectrum to 2degrees to boost competition (2026-07-02)
• Spark and One NZ to cede mobile spectrum to 2degrees in reallocation (2026-07-02)
• Review of Co-location on Cellular Mobile Transmission Sites – Final Decision Paper (2026-02-24)
• Connexa, Two Degrees Networks and Two Degrees Mobile – Clearance Determination (2023-05-04)
• One New Zealand and Dense Air – Clearance Determination (2024-05-02)
• 2degrees MoRAN release (2020-06-22)