One NZ and 2degrees want to merge the part of their mobile networks that most customers never think about: the antennas and active equipment on cell sites. The efficiency case is real. So is the risk that New Zealand quietly goes from three competing mobile networks to two, with little standing behind them to keep prices in check.
The proposal would put both companies’ radio access network (RAN) assets into a 50/50 joint venture that sells access back to each of them, according to RNZ. Each keeps its own spectrum, core network and retail pricing. The Commerce Commission is testing whether the deal could let the venture raise prices or cut quality, or make tacit coordination between the two partners more likely, and expects to decide by 23 November.
The pitch is coverage, capacity and 6G
One NZ chief executive Nick Judd argues RAN sharing is already common overseas and would mean more efficient investment, faster access to technology such as 6G and better resilience (RNZ). 2degrees chief executive Mark Callander promises “better coverage, greater capacity, stronger resilience and faster access to new technology”.
That is not spin. Duplicating towers and radios across a small, sparsely populated country is expensive, and TUANZ chief executive Craig Young pointed to “fewer cellphone towers on the hill” as a tangible benefit. Even Spark’s Jolie Hodson stopped short of opposing it, saying only that the move from three networks to two will need careful consideration.
But a cheaper network for the operators is not the same thing as a cheaper network for customers.
The savings may never reach your invoice
The sharpest critique comes from global antitrust economists Compass Lexecon, in a report commissioned by Chapman Tripp. It finds the savings are mostly fixed-cost and “unlikely to be significantly passed through to customers in lower prices”. Fixed-cost savings fatten margins. They rarely cut tariffs.
Compass Lexecon also flags a subtler problem. Once One NZ and 2degrees share a network, investment by the venture only wins customers from Spark, weakening the incentive to race each other on coverage and capacity. And if the venture charges its owners on a usage basis, it could lift their marginal costs and set an effective price floor across the market.
That is the business risk in plain terms. Today, two operators spend capital trying to out-cover each other. Tomorrow, they would share one upgrade path and one budget.
No safety valve if rivalry softens
In many markets, resellers would cushion this. Mobile virtual network operators buy wholesale capacity and undercut the big brands, disciplining prices even when infrastructure consolidates. New Zealand barely has that sector. ISPANZ says MVNOs hold about 3% of mobile connections here, versus roughly 20% in Australia and across the OECD, and cannot offer core features such as satellite texting. It wants proper MVNO regulation in place before any further consolidation.
This is the under-reported point. The efficiency-versus-competition trade-off looks very different in a market with no backstop. Take away rivalry at the network layer and there is little left beneath the three retail brands to keep them sharp.
History is not on the side of two networks
New Zealand has run this experiment before. Mobile was a two-network market until 2degrees arrived in 2009, after reforms designed to break concentrated telecom power. Veterans of that fight now describe the joint venture as “a downhill slippery slope towards a duopoly”.
Former TUANZ chair Judy Speight argues the deal creates a “single shared upgrade path” that would be difficult to reverse. She wants the Commission to decline clearance unless the companies offer binding, enforceable commitments on competition, innovation and rural service.
From a pro-market perspective, that is the right test. Infrastructure sharing is not inherently anti-competitive, and regulators should not block sensible efficiencies on reflex. But the burden sits with the applicants. The Commission can only clear the deal if it is satisfied competition will not be substantially lessened, and the evidence so far suggests the gains flow to shareholders first.
What to watch on 23 November
For businesses that run payments, logistics, field crews and rural operations on mobile, this is the most consequential telecoms decision of the year. Because 2degrees is majority owned by Macquarie Asset Management and Aware Super, the deal also needs Overseas Investment Office sign-off.
The outcome that matters is not a simple yes or no. It is whether any clearance arrives with enforceable conditions: guaranteed wholesale access for resellers, rural coverage commitments and pricing structures that do not quietly set a floor. Without them, New Zealand trades a duplicated network for a market with fewer reasons to compete, and it will be very hard to buy that competition back.
Sources
- Newsroom: Telco veterans warn One and 2degrees network joint venture is ‘a slippery slope’ (2026-10-20)
- RNZ: One NZ and 2degrees launch bid to share mobile network infrastructure (2026-08-27)
- Reseller News: ComCom outlines key competition issues related to 2degrees and One NZ RAN JV (2026-10-02)
- The Post: One NZ and 2degrees propose pooling key part of their mobile networks (2026-08-26)
- Commerce Commission: Compass Lexecon report for Chapman Tripp on proposed One NZ / 2degrees RAN joint venture (2026-10-14)
- Commerce Commission: ISPANZ submission on Statement of Preliminary Issues (2026-10-14)
- Commerce Commission: Submission from Judy Speight, former chair of TUANZ (2026-10-15)
Join the discussion
Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.