Is the FCC Trying to Kill Open RAN? Chairman Carr’s Letter to EchoStar Sends a Dangerous Signal
On May 9, 2025, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr sent a sharply worded letter to EchoStar Chairman Charlie Ergen. At first glance, the letter appears to raise questions about EchoStar’s compliance with its 5G buildout obligations. But to those tracking the future of U.S. telecom infrastructure, the real implication is more alarming: it threatens to undermine the most ambitious Open RAN deployment in U.S. history—and with it, the entire U.S.-led push for a more secure and innovative wireless ecosystem.
This is not just about a compliance dispute. It’s about whether the U.S. government supports its own Open RAN industrial base—or whether it will allow legacy politics and regulatory ambiguity to suffocate the very innovation we claim to champion.
EchoStar and the American Open RAN Bet
EchoStar (and previously DISH Network) has done what few believed possible. It built a greenfield 5G network from scratch—deploying over 24,000 5G sites, covering 268 million Americans—powered not by legacy vendors like Ericsson or Nokia, but by a U.S.-led stack of Open RAN equipment and software.
Companies like Mavenir, JMA Wireless, and Altiostar played critical roles. EchoStar’s Boost Mobile network is proof that Open RAN isn’t just a lab experiment. It’s real. It works. And it can scale.
This network represents a national strategic asset—the only large-scale Open RAN deployment in the Western Hemisphere. It demonstrates that America can build telecom infrastructure without relying on Chinese vendors or outdated proprietary systems. It sends a powerful demand signal to the vendor ecosystem: the U.S. is serious about sovereignty in telecom.
Boost Mobile’s 5G Network Earns Top Rankings
That signal was validated just last week.
According to Opensignal’s independent performance report, Boost Mobile ranked #1 in 5G reliability and 5G coverage across 15 major U.S. cities. This milestone affirms the strength of Boost’s Open RAN-based standalone 5G network—delivering a fast, stable, and consistent experience to consumers.
The report measured:
Time connected to the network
Internet access success rates
Task completion
Overall performance consistency
Boost Mobile outperformed legacy carriers in delivering broad, dependable 5G coverage—reinforcing Open RAN's technical credibility and commercial viability.
In short: the Boost network, built on Open RAN and American vendors, is winning.
Carr’s Letter: A Turning Point?
So why, just days later, did Commissioner Carr issue a letter that calls all of this into question?
Carr asserts that EchoStar may have failed to meet its spectrum buildout milestones and criticizes a 2024 bureau-level decision that extended EchoStar’s timeline. He implies that such waivers lacked transparency and may have enabled delay or evasion of license obligations.
Let’s be clear: regulatory oversight matters. But the tone, timing, and implications of Carr’s letter are hard to ignore. It casts doubt on:
A decade of regulatory work to align U.S. policy with Open RAN standards
The 3GPP’s incorporation of AWS-4 into Release 17 for satellite-terrestrial integration
EchoStar’s billions in private capital invested to create an American alternative to Huawei
This is more than a paperwork dispute. It’s a direct shot at the most visible Open RAN deployment in America.
The Chilling Effect on Open RAN Investment
Carr’s letter is not just a legal warning. It’s a capital repellent.
Open RAN relies on a multi-vendor, interoperable, cloud-native ecosystem—precisely the kind of market that startups and growth-stage companies build. These firms need confidence that if they take regulatory and architectural risks, they won’t be left hanging when politics shift.
If EchoStar, the pioneer of this transformation, can be retroactively penalized, it sends a loud message to investors:
Is the U.S. serious about telecom innovation—or just about protecting incumbents?
Can you trust the regulatory framework to support risk capital in critical infrastructure?
Would you be safer investing in Japan’s or India’s Open RAN ecosystem instead?
The FCC’s actions risk drying up investment in Open RAN vendors, integrators, and deployment partners. The cost isn’t measured in headlines. It’s measured in lost jobs, slowed innovation, and reduced resilience.
Killing Open RAN Before It Takes Root
Let’s not mince words.
If the FCC uses this letter as a pretext to revoke licenses or destabilize EchoStar’s network, it won’t just harm one company. It will do what China could only dream of: kill America’s most promising Open RAN infrastructure before it becomes entrenched.
The U.S. will have sent a message that innovation is unwelcome, that alliances don’t matter, and that no amount of domestic investment or technical excellence will be enough.
That’s a strategic error.
That’s a policy failure.
That’s how we lose the future.