在进入任何市场之前，了解虚拟运营商（MVNO）在合法截取方面的责任至关重要。在虚拟运营商商业模式中，最常见——也是影响最深远——的问题之一就是：谁应承担合法截取的法律责任。乍看之下，答案似乎很简单，但在实践中却错综复杂。 法律义务、技术能力、合同安排以及实际执行往往涉及 MVNO 和宿主 MNO 双方，而双方职责的界限可能并不清晰、存在争议，或者在规范双方关系的商业协议中根本未予明确。.
本文借鉴欧洲主要市场的监管框架以及运营商在处理这些问题时的实践经验，对虚拟运营商（MVNO）与移动网络运营商（MNO）关系中本地号（LI）责任的法律、技术及合同层面进行了详细探讨。.
虚拟运营商（MVNO）的合法截取责任
Under the European Electronic Communications Code, Member States can make lawful interception a condition of the general authorisation, but national law decides who must do what. Many countries oblige every provider of a public service; others, such as Germany, put the technical obligation on whoever operates the network installation and give pure service providers lighter duties.
For MVNOs that hold their own regulatory registration — which is the case for most MVNOs operating in European markets — this means that the MVNO carries LI duties of its own, which may or may not include the full technical obligation. The fact that the MVNO uses the MNO’s network infrastructure does not make compliance the MNO’s problem alone, but it also does not automatically move every obligation to the MVNO.
National rules differ on this point. In Germany, § 170(1) TKG obliges whoever operates the telecommunications installation used to provide the service. A reseller or light MVNO that relies on its host’s installation must, under § 170(2) TKG, make sure the host can implement interception orders and tell the Bundesnetzagentur who implements them. A full MVNO that runs its own core is itself an operator under § 170(1). In the Netherlands, the Telecommunicatiewet places the obligation on the provider of the public electronic communications service. In France, the CPCE requires operators declared with ARCEP to maintain interception capabilities. The specific language differs, and so does the outcome: depending on the country and on how much of the network the MVNO operates, the obligation may sit with the MVNO, with the host MNO, or with both.
Many jurisdictions allow or recognise arrangements where the MNO performs interception on behalf of the MVNO. Where the MVNO is itself the obliged party and the MNO only acts on its behalf, the MVNO stays responsible for the result (in Germany, an obliged party may use a contractor but must remain able to implement orders under its own responsibility, § 5(3) TKÜV). The MVNO cannot simply point to the MNO and claim that compliance is the MNO’s problem.
技术现实：能力掌握在移动网络运营商手中
Whatever the legal split, the technical capability to intercept communications often resides with the host MNO. This is because the MVNO’s subscribers communicate over the MNO’s radio access network, and their traffic traverses the MNO’s core network infrastructure. The interception points — the network elements where traffic can be captured and duplicated — are typically within the MNO’s domain.
This creates a tension: the entity that holds the subscriber relationship (the MVNO) often lacks the capability, while the host MNO that has the capability may itself be obliged for traffic on its network, as in Germany. Resolving this tension requires either the MVNO to acquire its own technical capability (by deploying its own core network elements and interception infrastructure), or the MNO to provide interception services to the MVNO as part of the wholesale arrangement.
合适的解决方案取决于虚拟移动网络运营商（MVNO）的架构。拥有自有核心网络的完全型MVNO可以直接控制截取点，并能部署自己的LI系统。而完全依赖移动网络运营商（MNO）基础设施的轻型MVNO和转售商则必须依靠MNO来 拦截能力, ，这需要签订正式协议并作出技术安排。.
合同层面
虚拟运营商（MVNO）与移动网络运营商（MNO）之间的合同是弥合义务与能力之间差距的主要机制。 一份起草完善的MVNO协议将包含针对合法监听的具体条款，涵盖各方的责任、MNO将提供的服务、响应时间和服务水平、技术接口和数据格式、成本分摊以及违规责任。.
实际上，许多虚拟运营商（MVNO）协议对合法截取未作规定，或者仅以笼统的措辞予以提及。这对虚拟运营商而言是一个重大风险。如果协议未明确要求移动网络运营商（MNO）提供截取服务，虚拟运营商可能会发现自己既无法履行法律义务，也无法强制移动网络运营商提供协助。 在任何MVNO协议的谈判中，协商明确、全面的合法截获条款都应作为优先事项。.
协议中应包含的关键条款包括：移动网络运营商（MNO）提供的拦截服务范围、符合监管要求的启用时限、IRI和CC的数据格式及交付机制、 处理紧急和突发截取请求的流程、各方的保密义务、使移动虚拟网络运营商（MVNO）能够核实合规性的审计权、截取过程中出现故障时的责任划分，以及因监管变更而需要更新截取能力（LI）的相关程序。.
LI责任分配模型
实际上，在MVNO与MNO之间分配LI责任方面采用了几种模式。 第一种是“由MNO执行”的模式，即MNO代表MVNO进行截获。MNO收到截获令（无论是直接来自执法部门还是通过MVNO转交），在其网络上启动截获，并将截获的数据交付给执法部门。 MVNO 则提供行政支持并与执法部门进行协调。这种模式在轻型 MVNO 和转售商中较为常见，需要与 MNO 签订全面的协议，并制定经过验证的技术安排。.
第二种模式是由移动虚拟网络运营商（MVNO）自行实施的模式，在此模式下，MVNO部署自己的LI基础设施——包括中介功能和切换接口——并独立进行截获。 该模式要求MVNO具备足够的网络基础设施（通常是其自身的核心网络要素）以作为截取点。它使MVNO能够完全掌控截取过程，但需要投入大量的技术资金。.
The third model is a hybrid approach, where certain aspects of interception are handled by the MNO and others by the MVNO. For example, the MNO might capture the content (CC) in its network, while the MVNO’s own core elements (such as its IMS) produce the event data (IRI); both streams must then carry the same correlation number so the agency can match them, and the MVNO delivers them to law enforcement through its own 调解平台. 该模式要求虚拟运营商（MVNO）与移动网络运营商（MNO）之间进行密切的技术协调，但能在能力与控制之间实现切实的平衡。.
监管要求与执法
欧洲各地的监管机构越来越关注 LI合规 of MVNOs. As the MVNO market has grown and diversified, regulators have recognised that MVNOs cannot be overlooked in the enforcement of interception obligations. Some legislators address this directly: Germany’s TKG, for example, sets specific duties for providers that use another operator’s network (§ 170(2) TKG), making clear that the MVNO’s dependency on the MNO does not remove the MVNO’s own responsibilities.
在执法行动中，监管机构和 执法机构 look at whoever holds the specific duty that was breached. In Germany, failing to maintain interception facilities is an administrative offence with fines of up to EUR 500,000 (§ 228 TKG). Contractual recourse against the MNO does not protect an MVNO from sanctions for its own duties.
这凸显了确保虚拟运营商（MVNO）与移动网络运营商（MNO）之间关于合法截获的安排必须稳健、经过测试且有据可查的重要性。一种仅在纸面上可行、但未经测试和实际运营经验验证的安排，只会给人一种虚假的安全感。.
实用建议
For MVNOs, the practical recommendations are clear. Establish which LI duties are yours under national law and your network architecture, and accept that you can outsource the work but not the responsibility. Review your wholesale agreement and ensure that LI is comprehensively addressed, with clear responsibilities, service levels, and technical specifications. If you rely on the MNO for interception, verify its capability before you sign (in Germany this check is a legal duty under § 170(2) TKG) and test the end-to-end process, including how orders for your subscribers reach the MNO. Maintain your own documentation, audit trails, and operational procedures, even if the MNO performs the technical interception. And invest in understanding the LI landscape in your market, so that you can engage knowledgeably with regulators, law enforcement, and your MNO partner.
结论
The question of MVNO versus MNO responsibility for lawful interception has no single answer: it depends on national law and on which network elements the MVNO operates, and it is rarely as simple as the commercial agreement suggests. Bridging the gap between legal obligation and technical capability requires careful contractual arrangements, validated technical solutions, and proactive engagement with regulators. MVNOs that approach this challenge systematically, with clear agreements and tested infrastructure, will be well positioned to meet their obligations. Those that leave it unaddressed will discover the consequences at the worst possible time — when a law enforcement agency presents an interception order and expects it to be executed.
For MNOs that host MVNOs, the recommendation is equally straightforward: check whether you are yourself obliged for the MVNO traffic on your installation (as in Germany), recognise that your MVNO partners have duties that depend on your technical cooperation, and build this cooperation into your wholesale offering. Providing clear, well-defined LI services to your MVNO partners protects both parties — the MVNO can meet its legal obligations, and the MNO avoids the reputational and practical complications that arise when an MVNO on its network fails to comply with an interception order. A collaborative approach to LI compliance serves the interests of the entire ecosystem — operators, regulators, and law enforcement alike.
关于MVNO合法截取责任的问题，归根结底是一个法律问题，且因司法管辖区而异。运营商必须就其在各市场中的MVNO合法截取义务获取明确的法律建议。.
相关文章
如需进一步了解相关主题，请浏览这些文章：
外部资源
以下外部资源提供了更多背景资料和官方文件：
