Russia's Digital Ministry Reviews Rules for Virtual Operators Over Banks' Cheap Plans

Russia's Ministry of Digital Development (Mintsifry) is discussing new rules for mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), including projects run by Russian banks, with the largest carriers. Vedomosti reports the story. The ministry proposes revisiting the settlement terms between network owners and the companies that lease infrastructure for telecom services. The trigger was a concern among telecoms that banks are winning customers with low tariffs and cutting into carrier revenue. The article gives no figures, neither the size of the rates nor the share of bank MVNOs in the market, and that is an important caveat.

What exactly is being discussed

This is about money flowing between operators, not about rules for subscribers. A virtual operator builds no towers and owns no backbone channels. It buys traffic, minutes and SMS wholesale from the "Big Three" or another network owner, then resells them under its own brand. The terms of that wholesale deal determine which retail tariff an MVNO can offer without losing money.

Based on the report, Mintsifry wants to change precisely this mechanism. Which formulas or restrictions are under consideration is not yet known. It is also unclear whether the outcome would be a regulatory act, recommendations, or agreements within the industry.

What is known so far:

• Initiator: Russia's Ministry of Digital Development.
• Participants in the discussion: the largest telecom operators.
• Subject: settlement terms between network owners and MVNOs.
• How the problem is framed: "underpricing" of telecom services.
• Special attention: projects run by Russian banks.
• Status: under discussion; no final decisions or timelines.

Why banks ended up at the center

A bank-run MVNO has different economics from a conventional operator. For a bank, mobile service is often a customer-retention tool. A cheap tariff works as an entry point into the bank's ecosystem: cards, cashback, subscriptions, loans. If mobile service pays for itself through those products, the bank can hold its retail price below what an operator that earns only on subscription fees can afford.

For the network owner, the picture looks different. It leases capacity at a wholesale price, while its own subscribers see cheaper offers from its partner and switch. As a result, the telecom loses retail revenue and gets wholesale revenue in return, which is usually smaller. This is, apparently, the arrangement the industry calls underpricing of services.

That is our interpretation, not a quote from the publication. But the logic of the conflict follows from the setup itself: the network is shared, while the money from the customer is distributed unevenly.

What to watch next

So far this is a conversation, not a decision, so it is too early to draw conclusions about tariffs. Here are the practical markers.

First: the form of the document. If the rules are codified in a regulatory act, they will affect all MVNOs. If they stop at agreements with the operators, the outcome will depend on the negotiating power of each side.

Second: the settlement mechanics. Minimum wholesale rates, or a link to the market price of services, would hit the most aggressive tariffs hardest. This is worth checking against the text once it becomes public.

Third: the banks' reaction. If mobile service stops being a cheap acquisition tool, some projects may revise their tariffs or scale back "free mobile service" promotions tied to account servicing.

For subscribers, the most likely effect is that cheap bank tariffs may get more expensive or lose some features. For non-bank MVNOs, the changes would touch wholesale terms, and the consequences will depend on whether they fall under the same rules. None of these scenarios has been confirmed so far. We are following Mintsifry's publications and the operators' comments.