[JumpCrisscross]

> MVNO = mobile virtual network operator

I subscribe to the Elon Musk school on acronyms--avoid at all reasonable costs [1]. That said, expanding "MVNO" to "mobile virtual network operator" does nothing for the discussion. If you aren't familiar with the former, you won't be with the latter.

Repairing the original sin of calling such virtual networks MNVOs post hoc is simply more friction than going along with an agreed term.

[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-boss-elon-musk-threatened-dras...

[hwillis]

"mobile virtual network operator" was exactly what I thought it would be, but there's no way I could figure out what MVNO was without googling it. The name is not totally obfuscating but the acronym is.

[stagbeetle]

At least "mobile virtual network operator" has some context clues (along with the subject matter) and is easy to guess.

"MVNO" has none such.

[Dobbs]

I am not familiar with MVNO but I can read "mobile virtual network operator" and instantly understand what it means by knowing what the individual words mean and putting it together. Expanding MVNO at least once when originally introducing the term helps.

[mikeash]

I am familiar with MVNO, and reading "mobile virtual network operator" would make me stop for a moment to figure out what they were talking about.

When an acronym is in common use, not using it will cause trouble for people who are used to it.

As long as it's something easily googleable, it really doesn't seem like a big deal either way. If you don't know what MVNO stands for, it'll take two seconds to find out. This does not apply for cases where there's lots of different meanings, or the acronym is spelled the same as a common word.

[dnadler]

Hence the common syntax: "mobile virtual network operator (MVNO)"

I really don't see the downside of not expanding it once, unless you're trying to avoid educating people.

[cerved]

You mean AAARC