The Great Open RAN Deception: How Telecom Giants Hijacked a Revolution

How legacy carriers turned a movement designed to break their monopoly into their greatest marketing triumph

Executive Summary

The telecommunications industry just pulled off one of the most audacious corporate heists in modern tech history. Open RAN—a revolutionary technology designed to shatter the oligopoly of companies like Ericsson and Nokia—has been systematically co-opted by the very giants it was meant to disrupt.

Here's what happened: Open RAN promised to break apart the monolithic, closed networks that have dominated telecom for decades. Instead of being locked into single vendors, carriers would mix and match components from multiple suppliers, driving innovation and competition. The U.S. government alone has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in this vision, believing it would diversify the supply chain and enhance national security.

But legacy carriers had other plans. AT&T's 14 billion dollars "Open RAN" contract with Ericsson? It's effectively a single-vendor deal that violates every principle of genuine openness. The Open RAN market collapsed 83% in 2024 as carriers systematically chose closed solutions while keeping the "open" branding. Ericsson, once an Open RAN skeptic, has transformed itself into a self-proclaimed "leader" while maintaining the same proprietary control mechanisms that have driven its profits for decades.

The result is a telecommunications landscape where "Open RAN" has become meaningless marketing speak—a hollow promise that serves incumbent interests while betraying the public trust. This isn't just corporate maneuvering; it's a systematic subversion of a technology revolution that was supposed to benefit everyone.

The evidence is damning, the implications are profound, and the deception runs deeper than most realize.

Synthetic Wisdom Analysis

The Promise That Never Was

In the annals of corporate capture, few stories are as brazen as the telecommunications industry's hijacking of Open RAN. This isn't merely another tale of incumbents adapting to disruptive technology—it's a masterclass in how established players can neutralize existential threats while appropriating the language of revolution for their own ends.

To understand the magnitude of this deception, we must first grasp what Open RAN was supposed to achieve. The concept emerged from a simple but powerful insight: the telecommunications infrastructure that connects our world has been controlled by a handful of vendors who built closed, proprietary systems that locked operators into decades-long relationships. Ericsson, Nokia, and Huawei didn't just sell equipment—they sold ecosystems where every component had to come from the same supplier, stifling innovation and maintaining artificially high prices through vendor lock-in.

Open RAN promised to change everything. By disaggregating these monolithic systems and creating open, standardized interfaces between components, operators could finally mix and match equipment from different suppliers. A carrier might use Ericsson's radio units with Samsung's software and Fujitsu's management systems, creating genuine competition at every layer of the network. The vision was compelling: lower costs, faster innovation, and a more resilient supply chain that didn't depend on a few dominant players.

The U.S. government embraced this vision enthusiastically, viewing Open RAN as both an economic opportunity and a national security imperative. With Huawei effectively banned from American networks, diversifying the supplier base became a strategic priority. Hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding flowed to Open RAN research and development, with programs like the Acceleration of Compatibility and Commercialization for Open RAN Deployments Consortium receiving 42.3 million dollars specifically to advance multi-vendor interoperability.

But something went wrong. Catastrophically wrong.

The Numbers Don't Lie

The collapse of genuine Open RAN deployment is not a matter of opinion—it's documented in stark market data that reveals the systematic abandonment of the technology's core principles. Mobile Experts, a leading industry analyst firm, reported in October 2024 that the Open RAN market had "screeched to a halt," experiencing an 83% drop in revenue as legacy carriers increasingly preferred single-vendor solutions [1].

This isn't a temporary market correction or a natural evolution of the technology. It represents a fundamental rejection of the Open RAN business model by the very operators who were supposed to drive its adoption. The report reveals that "many people don't understand why legacy mobile operators are rejecting the original Open RAN business model and are choosing a Single Software business model instead."

The answer is both simpler and more troubling than most realize: legacy carriers never intended to embrace genuine Open RAN. They appropriated the terminology while maintaining the substance of their traditional vendor relationships, creating what the industry now euphemistically calls "single vendor Open RAN"—a contradiction in terms that would be laughable if it weren't so consequential.

Dell'Oro Group, another respected industry analyst, projects that multivendor open RAN deployments will account for just 5% to 10% of total RAN revenues by 2028 [1]. This projection is devastating when considered against the original promise of Open RAN to transform the entire telecommunications supply chain. It suggests that 90% to 95% of deployments marketed as "Open RAN" will continue to be dominated by single vendors using approaches that fundamentally contradict the technology's core principles.

The AT&T Deception: A Case Study in Corporate Doublespeak

No example better illustrates the hollowness of legacy carrier Open RAN claims than AT&T's highly publicized partnership with Ericsson. In December 2023, AT&T announced a five-year contract worth up to 14 billion dollars, positioning this deal as evidence of the company's commitment to "lead the United States in commercial scale open radio access network (Open RAN) deployment."

The marketing was masterful. AT&T executives appeared at industry conferences touting their Open RAN leadership. Press releases emphasized the company's commitment to innovation and vendor diversity. Government officials praised AT&T's forward-thinking approach to network modernization. The narrative was compelling: America's largest carrier was embracing the future of telecommunications.

The reality was entirely different.

Industry analysis quickly revealed that AT&T's "Open RAN" contract was effectively a single-vendor deal that maintained all the characteristics of traditional closed systems. Mobile Experts specifically identified the contract as an example of "single vendor Open RAN," exposing the fundamental contradiction at the heart of AT&T's claims [1].

More than a year into the Ericsson-led rollout, Light Reading's analysis found "very little evidence AT&T's radio access network is as multivendor and virtualized as the telco makes out" [2]. This assessment directly contradicts AT&T's public statements and reveals the gap between marketing rhetoric and technical reality.

The details of AT&T's implementation expose the sophisticated ways in which legacy carriers maintain vendor lock-in while claiming openness. AT&T is moving to "one management system"—specifically, Ericsson's Intelligent Automation Platform (EIAP)—which creates a single point of vendor control over network management and orchestration. As AT&T's own executive Yigal Elbaz stated: "Today, every vendor comes with its own management system. We are moving to one management system."

This centralization directly contradicts the principle of demonstrated interoperability that defines genuine Open RAN. By allowing Ericsson to control the management layer, AT&T has created a form of vendor lock-in that is arguably more powerful than traditional hardware-based dependencies because it extends across the entire network ecosystem.

The limited vendor diversity that exists in AT&T's network is confined to non-critical segments. After Nokia's removal, Ericsson will be the only provider of RAN compute for the main macro network. While AT&T has mentioned connecting technology from CommScope and Corning to EIAP, these are limited to small cells rather than main sites. Fujitsu's role "appears limited for now to small cells," while Mavenir's equipment "also falls into the small cell category."

This pattern reveals a deliberate strategy: allow limited vendor diversity only in areas where it doesn't threaten the primary vendor's dominance over core network infrastructure. It creates the appearance of multi-vendor deployment while preserving the essential characteristics of single-vendor control.

Ericsson's Strategic Masterpiece

Perhaps no company has executed the co-optation of Open RAN more skillfully than Ericsson. The Swedish telecommunications giant has transformed what was originally conceived as an existential threat to its business model into a marketing opportunity that actually strengthens its competitive position.

Ericsson's journey from Open RAN skeptic to self-proclaimed leader represents a masterclass in strategic repositioning. Initially viewed as a company that was "dragging its feet" on Open RAN adoption due to its "legacy mindset based on a financially secure model of a monolithic network architecture," Ericsson recognized that fighting the movement would be less effective than co-opting it.

The transformation was remarkable in its audacity. Prior to winning AT&T's contract, "Ericsson was not viewed as a leading open radio access network vendor." Yet the company successfully repositioned itself as a pioneer in "industrializing Open RAN," claiming to lead "the industrialization of the three pillars of Open RAN: cloudification, open fronthaul, and open management."

This positioning allows Ericsson to shape the direction of Open RAN standards development while maintaining the substance of its closed vendor approach. The company now claims to be "a leading contributor to the O-RAN Alliance, holding three co-chair positions in the alliance" and having "the highest number of commits to the O-RAN Software Community." This influence enables Ericsson to guide standards development in directions that favor its technical approaches and commercial interests.

The genius of Ericsson's strategy lies in its selective embrace of openness. The company supports open interfaces where they serve its interests while maintaining proprietary advantages in critical areas. Through platforms like the Intelligent Automation Platform (EIAP), Ericsson maintains control over network management and orchestration even in deployments that include components from other suppliers.

This platform strategy represents a sophisticated evolution of vendor lock-in for the Open RAN era. Rather than relying solely on proprietary hardware interfaces, Ericsson has created software-based control points that maintain vendor influence even in deployments using open hardware interfaces and standards-compliant components. The result is "open" RAN that meets technical compliance requirements while preserving the commercial characteristics of closed vendor systems.

The R&D Weapon: Outspending Innovation into Submission

One of the most effective tools in the incumbent arsenal is the massive research and development spending advantage that companies like Ericsson and Nokia maintain over potential Open RAN competitors. This advantage creates what industry analyst Earl Lum describes as an insurmountable competitive dynamic.

"When you look at the R&D of Nokia and Ericsson, they're pouring billions of dollars while the startups are pouring tens of millions of dollars," Lum explains. "You're not going to outspend the incumbents." [3]

The analogy Lum uses to describe this dynamic is particularly illuminating: he compares tier-1 vendors to Formula One racing while their Open RAN competitors are like "push karts." This comparison captures the fundamental asymmetry in resources and capabilities that makes it virtually impossible for new entrants to compete effectively with established incumbents, even in an ostensibly "open" environment.

"As the incumbent continues to move, you have to keep pace," Lum notes. "But keeping pace isn't good enough. This race always ends up with the incumbents winning."

This R&D advantage allows companies like Ericsson to maintain technological leadership across multiple dimensions simultaneously. While a startup might develop innovative solutions for specific network functions, Ericsson can leverage its massive R&D budget to quickly develop competing solutions while maintaining its advantages in integration, support, and overall system performance.

The result is a competitive environment where innovation is systematically stifled not through superior technology but through superior resources. Open RAN was supposed to level this playing field by allowing specialized companies to compete in specific network functions without needing to develop complete end-to-end solutions. Instead, the persistence of single-vendor dominance has preserved the innovation bottlenecks that characterized traditional RAN markets.

The Government's Unwitting Complicity

The systematic failure of Open RAN implementation becomes even more troubling when considered in the context of massive government investment and policy support. The disconnect between stated policy objectives and actual market outcomes reveals a fundamental misalignment that undermines the effectiveness of public intervention in the telecommunications sector.

The U.S. government has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support Open RAN research and development based on the premise that the technology will increase supply chain diversity and reduce dependence on a small number of dominant vendors. Programs like the Acceleration of Compatibility and Commercialization for Open RAN Deployments Consortium have received substantial federal funding specifically to advance multi-vendor interoperability.

AT&T and Verizon have been significant recipients of this federal support, participating in government-funded initiatives designed to test and validate Open RAN technologies. The funding was provided with explicit goals of enabling genuine multi-vendor deployment and enhancing supply chain security through vendor diversification.

However, if carriers are using government funding to develop and test Open RAN technologies while simultaneously deploying single-vendor solutions that contradict Open RAN principles, this represents a fundamental breach of public trust. The use of Open RAN terminology to describe single-vendor deployments undermines the policy objectives that justified public investment and perpetuates the very vendor concentration problems that Open RAN was designed to address.

The regulatory justification for Open RAN support is based on the premise that increased vendor diversity will enhance supply chain security and reduce dependence on potentially problematic suppliers. But if Open RAN deployments continue to be dominated by the same small number of vendors that controlled traditional RAN markets, these security and supply chain objectives will not be achieved, regardless of whether the deployments use open interfaces or standards-compliant components.

The Innovation Stagnation Effect

One of the most damaging long-term consequences of the failure to implement genuine Open RAN is the perpetuation of innovation bottlenecks that have historically constrained the telecommunications equipment market. The original vision of Open RAN included the expectation that disaggregated networks would enable more rapid innovation cycles by allowing operators to adopt new technologies as they became available rather than waiting for their primary vendor to incorporate innovations into integrated solutions.

This vision promised to transform the pace of telecommunications innovation. Instead of being constrained by the research and development priorities of a few dominant vendors, the industry would benefit from the collective innovation of a diverse ecosystem of suppliers. New technologies could be deployed independently without requiring wholesale network upgrades, and operators could select best-of-breed solutions for specific network functions.

However, the persistence of single-vendor dominance in "Open RAN" deployments has preserved the innovation constraints that characterized traditional RAN markets. When operators continue to rely on single vendors for the vast majority of their network functions, innovation continues to be bottlenecked by the research and development capabilities and priorities of those vendors, regardless of whether the underlying interfaces are technically open.

This innovation stagnation is particularly problematic given the massive public investment that has been made in Open RAN development based on the promise of increased innovation and competition. Government funding programs have allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support Open RAN research and development, but if the resulting deployments continue to be dominated by the same vendors that controlled traditional RAN markets, these investments will not achieve their intended objectives.

The result is a telecommunications industry where the promise of accelerated innovation has been replaced by a more sophisticated form of the same innovation constraints that Open RAN was designed to address. The appropriation of Open RAN terminology by incumbent vendors has created the appearance of transformation while preserving the substance of the status quo.

The National Security Catastrophe: Deepening Foreign Dependency

The failure of genuine Open RAN implementation represents more than a commercial disappointment—it constitutes a national security catastrophe that deepens America's dangerous dependency on foreign suppliers for critical telecommunications infrastructure. As Synthetic Wisdom has previously documented in our analysis of Bell Labs' decline, the United States has systematically dismantled its domestic telecommunications research and development capabilities, leaving the nation dependent on foreign vendors for the networks that underpin its economy and defense.

The Open RAN deception compounds this vulnerability by perpetuating the illusion of progress while actually strengthening the position of foreign suppliers. When AT&T claims "Open RAN leadership" while implementing a 14 billion dollars single-vendor contract with Swedish company Ericsson, it doesn't just mislead the market—it actively undermines American national security by deepening dependency on foreign-controlled infrastructure.

The Foreign Vendor Stranglehold: Nokia and Ericsson's Quiet Victory

The current telecommunications landscape presents a stark reality that should alarm any serious observer of American strategic interests. With Huawei effectively banned from U.S. networks due to legitimate national security concerns, American carriers have consolidated their dependency around two European vendors: Nokia of Finland and Ericsson of Sweden. This concentration represents a fundamental strategic vulnerability that the Open RAN movement was explicitly designed to address.

As Synthetic Wisdom detailed in our analysis of telecommunications reindustrialization, the current situation leaves the United States "highly dependent on Chinese suppliers" in global markets while domestically relying on European vendors who have "mixed incentives when it comes to Open RAN." These companies have successfully maintained their oligopolistic control by co-opting Open RAN terminology while preserving the substance of their closed vendor relationships.

The strategic implications are profound. Nokia and Ericsson are not American companies, and their primary allegiance is to their shareholders and home governments, not to U.S. national security interests. When critical infrastructure decisions are made in Helsinki and Stockholm rather than Washington, American policymakers lose control over technologies that are essential to national defense, economic competitiveness, and domestic security.

This foreign dependency becomes particularly problematic when considered alongside the massive public investment that has been made in Open RAN development. American taxpayers have funded hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development based on promises of supply chain diversification and vendor independence. Instead, they have received more sophisticated forms of foreign vendor lock-in that are arguably more difficult to address than traditional hardware dependencies.

The Geopolitical Chess Game: How Europe Outmaneuvered America

The success of Nokia and Ericsson in maintaining their dominance while appropriating Open RAN terminology represents a masterful execution of economic statecraft that has effectively neutered American attempts to diversify the telecommunications supply chain. These companies have leveraged their massive research and development advantages—spending billions of dollars annually compared to the tens of millions available to American Open RAN startups—to maintain technological leadership while selectively embracing openness only where it serves their commercial interests.

The geopolitical implications extend far beyond bilateral trade relationships. As Synthetic Wisdom has analyzed in our examination of Trump's Open RAN strategy, the United States has been "pressuring allies to adopt Open RAN" as part of a broader effort to counter Chinese influence in global telecommunications infrastructure. However, this diplomatic strategy is fundamentally undermined when America's own largest carriers deploy "Open RAN" solutions that are dominated by the same foreign vendors that control traditional networks.

The credibility gap is enormous. How can American diplomats convince other nations to embrace genuine multi-vendor Open RAN deployments when AT&T, America's largest carrier, implements a 14 billion dollars single-vendor contract with Ericsson while claiming Open RAN leadership? The message sent to allies is clear: even the United States doesn't actually believe in the Open RAN principles it promotes internationally.

This credibility problem has serious consequences for American soft power and technological diplomacy. When the United States cannot demonstrate successful domestic implementation of the technologies it promotes abroad, it loses the moral authority and practical credibility necessary to shape global technology standards and deployment patterns. The result is a world where American policy objectives are undermined by American corporate practices that contradict stated national priorities.

The Innovation Exodus: Losing the Next Generation of Technology Leadership

The perpetuation of foreign vendor dominance through hollow Open RAN implementations has devastating consequences for American innovation and technological leadership. As documented in Synthetic Wisdom's analysis of Bell Labs' transformation from American innovation engine to foreign subsidiary, the United States has already lost its premier telecommunications research and development institution to foreign control when Nokia acquired Alcatel-Lucent in 2016.

The failure of genuine Open RAN implementation compounds this loss by preventing the emergence of a new generation of American telecommunications companies that could challenge foreign incumbents. When 90% to 95% of "Open RAN" deployments remain single-vendor, there is no market opportunity for the specialized American companies that Open RAN was supposed to enable. The innovation ecosystem that was supposed to flourish in a genuinely open environment never develops because the environment remains fundamentally closed despite the rhetoric of openness.

This innovation stagnation has cascading effects across the entire American technology sector. Telecommunications infrastructure is foundational to virtually every other technology application, from artificial intelligence and cloud computing to autonomous vehicles and smart manufacturing. When the United States lacks control over this foundational layer, it becomes increasingly dependent on foreign technology decisions that may not align with American economic or security interests.

The consequences extend to the next generation of wireless technologies as well. The research and development that will define 6G networks is increasingly concentrated in European and Asian companies that control current 5G infrastructure. American companies and researchers are relegated to secondary roles in standards development and technology evolution, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of technological dependency that becomes more difficult to break with each generation of wireless technology.

The Supply Chain Security Illusion: Open Interfaces, Closed Control

One of the most insidious aspects of the current Open RAN deception is the way it creates an illusion of supply chain security while actually perpetuating the vulnerabilities it was designed to address. When carriers implement "Open RAN" solutions that use open technical interfaces but maintain single-vendor control through proprietary management and orchestration systems, they create networks that appear diverse and resilient but remain fundamentally vulnerable to the same supply chain disruptions and security risks that characterized traditional closed systems.

This illusion is particularly dangerous because it may lead policymakers and security professionals to believe that supply chain diversification objectives have been achieved when they have not. A network that uses Ericsson's Intelligent Automation Platform to manage components from multiple suppliers is not meaningfully more secure or resilient than a traditional Ericsson network, because the critical control points remain concentrated in a single foreign vendor's systems.

The security implications are compounded by the global nature of modern telecommunications supply chains. Even when American carriers deploy equipment from European vendors, the components and software within that equipment may originate from suppliers around the world, including potentially hostile nations. Without genuine multi-vendor competition and transparent supply chain visibility, American networks remain vulnerable to disruption, espionage, and sabotage regardless of whether they technically comply with Open RAN interface standards.

The failure to achieve genuine supply chain diversification also undermines the resilience benefits that Open RAN was supposed to provide. In a crisis scenario where a major vendor becomes unavailable due to geopolitical tensions, natural disasters, or cyberattacks, networks that appear to be "open" but are actually controlled by single vendors would face the same disruption risks as traditional closed networks. The appearance of openness provides false confidence in network resilience that could prove catastrophic in an actual emergency.

The Economic Warfare Dimension: Subsidized Competition and Market Distortion

The persistence of European vendor dominance in American "Open RAN" deployments also reflects a broader pattern of economic competition that disadvantages American companies through subsidized foreign competition and market distortion. Both Nokia and Ericsson benefit from various forms of government support and favorable treatment in their home markets that enable them to compete aggressively in global markets while maintaining dominant positions in their domestic bases.

This competitive asymmetry is particularly problematic in the context of Open RAN development, where American companies are competing against foreign incumbents that have decades of accumulated advantages in research and development, customer relationships, and technical expertise. When American taxpayers fund Open RAN research and development through government programs, they are essentially subsidizing the development of technologies that foreign companies are better positioned to commercialize and control.

The result is a perverse situation where American public investment enables foreign private profit while American companies remain marginalized in their own domestic market. This pattern is unsustainable from both economic and security perspectives, as it perpetuates American technological dependency while transferring wealth and strategic advantage to foreign competitors.

The economic implications extend beyond the telecommunications sector to the broader question of American industrial competitiveness. When the United States cannot maintain competitive domestic suppliers in critical infrastructure sectors, it signals broader weaknesses in American industrial policy and innovation systems that may affect competitiveness across multiple technology domains.

The Path to Strategic Autonomy: What Genuine Open RAN Could Achieve

The tragedy of the current situation is that genuine Open RAN implementation could address many of these national security and economic competitiveness concerns if it were actually implemented according to its original principles. As Synthetic Wisdom has documented in our analysis of telecommunications reindustrialization, authentic Open RAN deployment could enable the United States to "rebuild a domestic telecom supply chain" and reduce dependency on foreign vendors through genuine multi-vendor competition and innovation.

True Open RAN implementation would create market opportunities for American companies to compete in specialized network functions without needing to develop complete end-to-end solutions. This would lower barriers to entry for American innovators while creating genuine alternatives to foreign vendor dominance. The disaggregated approach that defines authentic Open RAN would enable American companies to leverage their strengths in software, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence to compete effectively against foreign hardware-focused incumbents.

The national security benefits of genuine Open RAN extend beyond supply chain diversification to include enhanced security monitoring, more rapid threat response, and greater transparency in network operations. When networks are genuinely open and multi-vendor, security professionals can implement comprehensive monitoring and analysis systems that are not dependent on single vendor cooperation or proprietary interfaces.

However, these benefits can only be realized through genuine implementation of Open RAN principles, not through the hollow marketing exercises that currently dominate the market. Until American carriers embrace authentic multi-vendor deployment and reject the sophisticated vendor lock-in mechanisms that characterize current "Open RAN" implementations, the national security and economic benefits of the technology will remain unrealized.

The Broader Implications: When Corporate Capture Becomes Systemic

The Open RAN deception represents more than just another example of corporate maneuvering in the telecommunications sector. It illustrates a broader pattern of how incumbent industries can neutralize disruptive technologies through strategic co-optation rather than direct opposition.

This pattern has profound implications for technology policy and regulation. When established players can appropriate the language and imagery of disruption while preserving the substance of their market dominance, traditional regulatory approaches become inadequate. Regulators who focus on technical compliance with open standards may miss the commercial realities that determine whether those standards actually achieve their intended objectives.

The telecommunications industry's success in co-opting Open RAN also demonstrates the limitations of market-based solutions to entrenched oligopoly problems. The assumption that open standards and technical interoperability would automatically lead to increased competition has proven naive in the face of sophisticated incumbent strategies that maintain vendor lock-in through platform control and selective openness.

Perhaps most troubling is the way this deception undermines public trust in both government technology policy and corporate commitments to innovation. When companies can receive substantial public funding to develop "open" technologies while simultaneously deploying closed solutions that contradict those technologies' core principles, it creates a fundamental misalignment between public investment and private implementation that erodes confidence in the entire system.

The Path Forward: Recognizing Reality

The evidence is overwhelming: legacy carriers' claims of implementing true Open RAN networks are fundamentally hollow. These claims represent not merely exaggerated marketing but a systematic misrepresentation of technical reality that undermines the core objectives that justified massive public and private investment in Open RAN development.

The telecommunications industry has successfully co-opted the language and imagery of openness while preserving the substance of closed vendor relationships. Companies like AT&T proclaim their leadership in Open RAN deployment while implementing single-vendor solutions that violate every principle of genuine openness. Vendors like Ericsson have transformed themselves from Open RAN opponents to self-proclaimed leaders while maintaining the proprietary control mechanisms that have historically driven their profitability.

The result is a telecommunications market where "Open RAN" has become a marketing term divorced from its original meaning, used to describe deployments that maintain the essential characteristics of closed vendor systems while claiming compliance with open standards. This transformation represents not just a commercial failure but a betrayal of the public trust that has been placed in the telecommunications industry through government support and investment.

The continued dependency on legacy closed vendors like Ericsson in deployments marketed as "Open RAN" exposes the fundamental contradiction at the heart of legacy carrier claims. True Open RAN requires not just the adoption of open technical standards but a fundamental transformation of vendor relationships that embraces genuine multi-vendor competition and supply chain diversification.

Until there is a fundamental change in approach that prioritizes genuine multi-vendor deployment over marketing convenience, the Open RAN movement will remain a hollow promise that serves the interests of incumbent vendors while failing to deliver the innovation, competition, and supply chain diversification that justified its creation.

The telecommunications industry stands at a critical juncture. The choice is clear: embrace the genuine transformation that Open RAN represents, or continue down the path of sophisticated deception that preserves vendor concentration while claiming to embrace openness. The evidence suggests which path the industry has chosen, and the implications extend far beyond telecommunications to the broader question of whether disruptive technologies can truly challenge entrenched incumbents in the modern economy.

The great Open RAN deception is complete. The question now is whether anyone will hold the perpetrators accountable.

This analysis is part of Synthetic Wisdom's ongoing investigation into corporate capture of emerging technologies. For more insights into how established players neutralize disruptive threats, subscribe to stay informed about the forces shaping our technological future.

References

[1] IEEE ComSoc Technology Blog. "Mobile Experts: Open RAN market drops 83% in 2024 as legacy carriers prefer single vendor solutions." October 22, 2024. https://techblog.comsoc.org/2024/10/22/mobile-experts-open-ran-market-drops-83-in-2024-as-legacy-carriers-prefer-single-vendor-solutions/

[2] Light Reading. "AT&T struggles to defend 'open cloudiness' of Ericsson deal." https://www.lightreading.com/open-ran/at-t-struggles-to-defend-open-cloudiness-of-ericsson-deal

[3] Data Center Dynamics. "Do the incumbents have a stranglehold over Open RAN?" May 8, 2025. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/do-the-incumbents-have-a-stranglehold-over-open-ran/

[4] UK Government. "Open RAN Principles." April 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-open-ran-principles/open-ran-principles

[5] Ericsson. "Open RAN (O RAN) - Explore Open RAN: innovation and flexibility." https://www.ericsson.com/en/openness-innovation/open-ran-explained

[6] SDxCentral. "Why AT&T picked Ericsson for Open RAN deployment." https://www.sdxcentral.com/analysis/why-att-picked-ericsson-for-open-ran-deployment/

[7] Fujitsu. "What is a true Open RAN solution?" August 28, 2024.