Reassessing Open RAN

12 Mar

Over the past year, we’ve seen the Open RAN conversation move in different directions.

On one hand, industry forums remain optimistic and paint a positive image of O-RAN, claiming it’s on its way and the MNOs are eagerly subscribing to the ideology. During a recent Light Reading webinar discussing the results of the Winter 2025 Heavy Reading Open RAN Operator Survey, moderator Gabriel Brown (Omdia) led a discussion on architecture and ecosystem maturity. The survey results highlighted progress in standardisation, expanding lab environments, and increasing operator engagement. According to the findings, 60% of operators identified Open RAN as their primary architectural choice for 6G, and many are either adopting O-RAN principles today or actively considering their inclusion in future roadmaps.

Yet the tone on the ground can feel different. Walking the halls of Mobile World Congress earlier this month, Open RAN was far less prominent (if not missing altogether) in conversations than it had been in previous years. The industry’s attention appeared to shift toward AI, automation, and network monetisation, with Open RAN mentioned more as an architectural component than as the headline topic it once was.

That shift is also reflected in recent industry headlines, which often focus on retrenchment. Vendors once positioned at the forefront of Open RAN have stepped back from hardware ambitions. NEC announced plans to discontinue its 4G and 5G radio equipment business and refocus on software. Mavenir, long positioned as a champion of Open RAN hardware, exited the radio market following financial restructuring. Other players that once expressed ambitions to act as full-scale Open RAN system integrators have since narrowed their focus, choosing to specialise in specific parts of the value chain rather than deliver end-to-end RAN solutions. After these developments, I couldn’t help but wonder, is there still hope for O-RAN long-term, or is it quietly receding?

Where it started

Before exploring the challenges that followed, let’s quickly recap how and why O-RAN emerged in the first place.

By the mid-2010s, telecom operators were getting frustrated with tightly bundled network stacks that were expensive to run, slow to evolve, and difficult to manage, often tying them to a small number of suppliers. At the same time, the IT world was moving toward running software on general-purpose servers, using virtualisation to decouple applications from specific hardware. Operators began applying similar thinking to telecom networks, starting in the core and gradually pushing those software-based, disaggregated approaches closer to the radio network. In 2018, the O-RAN Alliance was formed to define open, standardised interfaces that promised to enable multi-vendor RAN deployments and increase competition.

Where we RAN into some issues

So why did O-RAN fail to instantly disrupt the market, as it promised? There are a few reasons:

Operational complexity in the critical infrastructure.
Multi-vendor system integration.
Policy constraints and uneven government support.

Theoretically, the RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) is meant to make network management easier. An operator should be able to deploy software applications to adjust network behaviour without modifying the underlying hardware. This sounds quite straightforward. In practice, however, the telecom reality is more complex.

On an iPhone, the iOS operating system provides standard interfaces that allow applications from different vendors (Google, Slack, Instagram, etc.) to run side by side. If one app underperforms, it can be deleted and replaced with another in seconds. The RIC is conceptually similar: it provides a standardised control layer where different xApps and rApps can be deployed to manage networks and optimise their performance. However, telecom networks are critical infrastructure. Replacing or modifying a software module is not as simple as uninstalling an app; it carries operational risk, regulatory considerations, and the potential for service disruption. Even with standardised interfaces, plugging components in and out of a live RAN environment requires careful validation. Tools such as digital twins may help by allowing operators to test applications in simulated environments before deployment. If the RAN becomes fully software-defined, operators could eventually introduce or replace applications during low-traffic periods with minimal disruption. Telecom networks, however, are not run like consumer IT platforms, and the transition toward that level of flexibility is gradual. The principle of software-driven openness has been compelling for over a decade, but its implementation is constrained by the operational realities and cost structures of carrier-grade networks.

While O-RAN defines standardised interfaces, openness does not automatically translate into plug-and-play interoperability. Unlike consumer software platforms with mature APIs and tightly governed ecosystems, parts of the O-RAN stack rely on evolving specifications and often RIC vendor-specific software development kits (SDKs). Standard compliance does not guarantee uniform implementation maturity, and operators often face additional validation and integration work before deploying multi-vendor components at scale. This gap between architectural intent and implementation maturity helps explain why operators continue to cite system integration as a primary challenge.

According to a Fierce Network Research survey, 37% of respondents identified system integration as the most challenging aspect of the Open RAN architecture to implement. While disaggregation expanded vendor choice, it also introduced additional coordination across interfaces and components.

The experience of large technology suppliers illustrates this challenge. A few years ago, Dell Technologies announced ambitions to act as a system integrator for Open RAN, positioning itself as the party that would assemble, deploy, and operate multi-vendor RAN solutions. At the time, its leadership described the industry as swinging from one extreme to another: first, tightly integrated systems with limited choice, and then Open RAN, where choice increased but so did complexity. The expectation was that a neutral systems integrator could help strike a balance, but in practice, this proved difficult to sustain. Dell eventually stepped back from this role and returned to supplying general-purpose hardware, later partnering with Ericsson to support cloud-based deployments. As one industry observer put it, delivering an end-to-end RAN, covering radios, baseband software, hardware platforms, and integration, is simply too large an undertaking for most companies, making specialisation a more viable strategy.

Another factor frequently cited as slowing Open RAN adoption is the lack of consistent government support. In the same Fierce Network survey, a majority of respondents said regulation or government backing was important to accelerating Open RAN, with 43% calling it very important and 22.5% describing it as critical. John Baker (founding member of the Open RAN Policy Coalition) echoed this view, arguing that vendor concentration in major markets has increased rather than decreased, raising questions about long-term supply resilience. Despite these concerns, broader geopolitical and economic issues currently rank higher on government agendas, limiting the level of direct intervention or support aimed specifically at expanding competition in the telecom vendor ecosystem.

Where Open RAN Stands Today

Perhaps unsurprisingly, rather than a sweeping, overnight transformation, Open RAN adoption is shaped by operator risk tolerance and market structure.

AT&T was once one of the most vocal champions of Open RAN and played a central role in shaping its early momentum. However, the company has opted to anchor its network modernisation around a single large supplier rather than actively pursue a multi-vendor approach. Unlike Rakuten, which built Open RAN from scratch in new networks, AT&T is introducing Open RAN gradually within a large, established network. To reduce risk, it has chosen to work closely with a single major supplier as a foundation, using Open RAN–compliant radios and cloud-based network software, while keeping performance and service stability as top priorities. This does not necessarily signal a rejection of O-RAN principles, but it does illustrate a shift to pragmatism. Given the challenges discussed above, that decision is not difficult to understand. Managing a nationwide, live network leaves little room for experimentation. It looks like AT&T and Ericsson are treating Open RAN as an evolution of the existing network, instead of an instant replacement.

Meanwhile, Taiwan offers a useful example of where Open RAN has gained traction under the right conditions. Government policy has played a central role, with spectrum made available and clear guidance encouraging local companies to focus on enterprise use cases rather than large national networks. This has created momentum around Open RAN in private 5G deployments, where enterprises can benefit from greater flexibility, the ability to combine hardware and software from different vendors, and reduced dependency on proprietary systems. In this environment, Open RAN is less about replacing incumbent suppliers at a national scale and more about enabling tailored, cost-effective solutions for specific business needs. Several Taiwanese vendors have built significant Open RAN portfolios as a result, supported by targeted public funding aimed at advancing Open RAN technologies and strengthening the broader ecosystem.

These examples illustrate that Open RAN is not progressing uniformly across markets. The variation does not necessarily signal inconsistency, but it reflects different starting points and strategic priorities.

The Long Game

What may be fading is the early narrative of rapid disruption through hardware diversification. What appears to be strengthening instead is a slower architectural shift: open interfaces, software-driven control, and automation frameworks designed to support flexibility over time.

The telecom industry has seen similar transitions before. IPv6 was standardised decades ago, yet its global adoption required ecosystem-wide alignment across vendors, operators, and equipment manufacturers. Standards alone do not accelerate deployment; maturity, interoperability, and economic incentives do. Open RAN may follow a comparable trajectory: technically viable, strategically endorsed, but dependent on coordinated execution.

Another structural factor shaping adoption is the broader 5G business environment. Despite early enthusiasm, a definitive “killer application” for 5G has yet to materialise at scale. Without significant new revenue streams, operators remain focused on cost control and network stability. In that context, large-scale architectural experimentation becomes harder to justify financially.

Open RAN is not disappearing. Nor is it unfolding as a sudden revolution. It is progressing unevenly, shaped by policy, economics, ecosystem maturity, and operational realities of critical infrastructures.