The Open RAN Deception Deepens: How AT&T's Hollow Claims Are Being Weaponized Against Genuine Innovation

Fresh evidence reveals AT&T isn't just deceiving the market—they're using false Open RAN credentials to influence FCC policy against America's only successful Open RAN network

Executive Summary

The Open RAN deception has entered a dangerous new phase. Six weeks after Synthetic Wisdom exposed "The Great Open RAN Deception," damning new evidence from Light Reading validates every prediction about AT&T's systematic subversion of open network technology. But the story has taken a more sinister turn: AT&T is now weaponizing their hollow Open RAN claims in Washington DC to influence FCC policy against EchoStar—the company that has actually built America's most successful Open RAN network.

The contrast could not be starker. While AT&T markets a 14 billion dollars Ericsson contract as "Open RAN leadership" despite creating what industry analysts call "single vendor Open RAN," EchoStar has deployed 24,000 genuine Open RAN sites covering 268 million Americans using U.S. vendors like Mavenir, JMA Wireless, and Altiostar. Roger Entner, one of the industry's most respected analysts, describes EchoStar's network as having a "genius-level 5G standalone core" and representing "the most technically advanced 5G networks in the country."

Yet EchoStar—not AT&T—faces existential regulatory threats from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has issued sharp letters questioning the company's spectrum licenses and buildout compliance. This regulatory pressure comes despite EchoStar's network recently ranking number one in 5G reliability and coverage across 15 major U.S. cities according to OpenSignal's independent analysis, outperforming the legacy carriers that have embraced closed vendor solutions.

The technical evidence against AT&T's claims has become overwhelming. Ericsson's latest purpose-built hardware doesn't even comply with Open RAN specifications for massive MIMO deployments, forcing AT&T into complete vendor dependence for its most advanced 5G networks. Meanwhile, the broader Open RAN market collapsed 83% in 2024 as carriers systematically chose closed solutions while appropriating open terminology. Dell'Oro Group now projects that genuine multivendor deployments will represent just 5-10% of the market by 2028.

The regulatory manipulation represents a new level of corporate capture that threatens America's telecommunications sovereignty. AT&T is using false Open RAN credentials earned through marketing theater to influence policy against the company that has actually delivered what Open RAN promised: a large-scale, high-performance network built with American vendors that proves alternatives to Chinese and European equipment giants are viable.

The stakes extend far beyond corporate competition. EchoStar's network represents a national strategic asset—the only large-scale Open RAN deployment in the Western Hemisphere that demonstrates America can build critical telecommunications infrastructure without depending on foreign suppliers. If regulatory pressure succeeds in dismantling this network while protecting AT&T's hollow claims, it will send a devastating message about America's commitment to genuine innovation and technological sovereignty.

This isn't just corporate maneuvering—it's policy sabotage that could accomplish what China's telecom strategy could only dream of: the destruction of America's most promising Open RAN infrastructure by America's own regulatory system. The evidence of deception is clear, the regulatory capture is documented, and the national security implications are profound. The only question is whether policymakers will recognize the manipulation before it's too late.

Synthetic Wisdom Analysis

The Deception Validated

When Synthetic Wisdom published "The Great Open RAN Deception" in July 2025, the analysis faced predictable pushback from industry defenders who dismissed concerns about AT&T's Ericsson partnership as premature or overstated. The telecommunications establishment, comfortable in its traditional patterns of vendor consolidation disguised as innovation, suggested that critics simply didn't understand the complexity of network transformation or the long-term vision behind AT&T's strategy.

Six weeks later, that defense has crumbled under the weight of technical evidence and market data that confirms every major prediction about the systematic subversion of Open RAN principles. Light Reading's comprehensive analysis, published August 14, 2025, provides the kind of detailed technical examination that industry observers had been waiting for—and the results are damning [1].

But the validation of Synthetic Wisdom's original analysis has revealed something even more troubling than corporate marketing deception. AT&T isn't just misleading investors and customers about their Open RAN capabilities—they're actively using their false credentials to influence federal policy against the company that has actually delivered what Open RAN promised. This represents a new level of regulatory capture that threatens not just market competition, but America's telecommunications sovereignty and national security.

The technical evidence against AT&T's claims has become overwhelming and undeniable. Ericsson's 6672 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), which AT&T has lauded as a breakthrough in 5G compute capability, does not support Cat-B uplink performance improvement (ULPI)—the open RAN specification that Ericsson itself backed for massive MIMO antenna technology [1]. This technical limitation forces complete vendor dependence for AT&T's most advanced 5G deployments, directly contradicting every principle of genuine openness.

Meanwhile, AT&T's consolidation of network management under Ericsson's Intelligent Automation Platform (EIAP) creates what the company's own executives describe as "one management system" [1]. This centralization represents the antithesis of Open RAN's distributed, interoperable approach, yet AT&T continues to market this architecture as evidence of their Open RAN leadership.

The Genuine Article Under Attack

The contrast between AT&T's hollow claims and EchoStar's genuine achievement could not be more stark. While AT&T deploys equipment that violates open standards and consolidates vendor control, EchoStar has built what Roger Entner describes as a "genius-level 5G standalone core" using a truly open, multivendor approach [2].

EchoStar's network represents everything that Open RAN was supposed to achieve. The company has deployed over 24,000 5G sites covering 268 million Americans—more than 80 percent of the U.S. population—using genuine Open RAN architecture powered by American vendors including Mavenir, JMA Wireless, and Altiostar [2]. This isn't marketing theater or cosmetic diversity confined to small cells; it's a comprehensive, large-scale deployment that proves Open RAN can work at national scale.

The technical sophistication of EchoStar's implementation extends far beyond traditional telecommunications infrastructure. The network operates as the world's first standalone, cloud-native Open RAN 5G network running entirely within AWS infrastructure, processing over 10 terabytes of data daily with 37-second latency—a dramatic improvement over traditional telecommunications analytics that operate with delays measured in days [2].

This cloud-native architecture enables capabilities that would be impossible with conventional network designs. EchoStar's RAN Intelligent Controller platform supports "future artificial intelligence-powered applications that can dynamically adapt networks in real time," including rapid spectrum changes at the 5G control node [2]. These capabilities position the network not just as a telecommunications service, but as a platform for the next generation of AI-powered applications and services.

The performance validation of EchoStar's approach has been decisive. According to OpenSignal's independent analysis, Boost Mobile—powered by EchoStar's Open RAN network—ranked number one in 5G reliability and coverage across 15 major U.S. cities, outperforming legacy carriers that have embraced closed vendor solutions [3]. This performance leadership directly contradicts the industry narrative that Open RAN requires compromises in network quality or reliability.

Regulatory Capture and Policy Sabotage

The most troubling aspect of the evolving Open RAN deception is how AT&T's false claims are being weaponized to influence federal policy against genuine innovation. While AT&T executives tour Washington DC promoting their supposed Open RAN leadership, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has issued increasingly aggressive challenges to EchoStar's spectrum licenses and buildout compliance [3].

The timing and tone of this regulatory pressure raises serious questions about the influence of incumbent interests on federal telecommunications policy. EchoStar has built exactly what U.S. policy was designed to encourage: a large-scale, high-performance network using American suppliers that reduces dependence on Chinese and European equipment giants. Yet this company faces existential regulatory threats while AT&T—whose "Open RAN" implementation violates the technology's core principles—enjoys regulatory protection and policy influence.

The regulatory capture extends beyond individual company treatment to fundamental policy priorities. The U.S. government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Open RAN development based on the premise that the technology would diversify America's telecommunications supply chain and enhance national security. The Acceleration of Compatibility and Commercialization for Open RAN Deployments Consortium alone received 42.3 million dollars specifically to advance multi-vendor interoperability [4].

EchoStar's network represents the successful realization of these policy objectives. The company has created what Synthetic Wisdom previously described as a "national strategic asset"—the only large-scale Open RAN deployment in the Western Hemisphere that demonstrates America can build critical telecommunications infrastructure without foreign dependence [3]. The network validates the technical credibility and commercial viability of Open RAN while providing a powerful demand signal to the vendor ecosystem that the U.S. is serious about telecommunications sovereignty.

Yet regulatory actions threaten to dismantle this success story while protecting companies like AT&T that have systematically subverted Open RAN principles. If FCC pressure succeeds in destabilizing EchoStar's network, it will accomplish what China's telecommunications strategy could only dream of: the destruction of America's most promising Open RAN infrastructure by America's own regulatory system.

The Market Evidence of Systematic Failure

The broader telecommunications equipment market provides overwhelming evidence that the Open RAN revolution has been systematically co-opted by incumbent interests. Rather than fostering the supplier diversity and innovation that Open RAN was supposed to enable, the appropriation of open terminology by closed systems has actually accelerated market consolidation and weakened competitive dynamics.

The market data tells a clear story of Open RAN's failure to achieve its stated objectives. Mobile Experts 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 collapse represents more than a temporary correction—it reflects the systematic abandonment of genuine multivendor approaches by the operators who were supposed to drive adoption.

Dell'Oro Group's projection that multivendor deployments will represent just 5-10% of the market by 2028 suggests that this trend toward single-vendor solutions will continue despite ongoing Open RAN marketing [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 concentration of market power in the hands of the "big three" vendors—Huawei, Ericsson, and Nokia—has actually increased during the period when Open RAN was supposed to be fostering greater competition. According to Omdia data, their combined market share rose from 75.1% in 2023 to 77.4% in 2024 [1]. This consolidation directly contradicts the diversification objectives that justified massive public and private investment in Open RAN development.

The systematic weakening of alternative suppliers provides perhaps the most concrete evidence of how false Open RAN claims have harmed genuine competition. Nokia's elimination from AT&T's network wasn't driven by technological inadequacy—the Finnish company's equipment continues to power T-Mobile's network, which independent monitors consistently rank as America's best mobile service [1]. Instead, Nokia became a casualty of AT&T's preference for single-vendor simplicity disguised as Open RAN innovation.

The financial impact on Nokia has been severe, with the company losing 5-8% of its mobile revenues from the AT&T relationship, representing an even larger share of profits in the lucrative U.S. market [1]. Nokia's mobile networks business currently operates at a loss, and the company's competitive position has been significantly weakened by the loss of this major customer relationship.

The collapse of Mavenir's radio business provides another telling example of how false diversity operates in practice. In December 2024, AT&T specifically identified Mavenir as a future provider of radio equipment, suggesting that genuine supplier competition was emerging in critical network components [1]. By June 2025, Mavenir had quit the radio market entirely, with S&P issuing a note describing the company's debt restructuring as "distressed and tantamount to a default" [1].

AT&T has remained conspicuously silent about Mavenir's collapse, despite having publicly identified the company as a key partner in its Open RAN strategy just months earlier. This silence speaks volumes about the superficial nature of AT&T's vendor diversity claims and the company's unwillingness to acknowledge when its supposed Open RAN ecosystem fails to deliver sustainable business models for alternative suppliers.

The Financial Reality of False Claims

One of the most direct ways to evaluate the success of AT&T's Open RAN claims is to examine whether the supposed transformation has delivered the cost advantages and operational efficiencies that justified the massive investment and industry disruption. AT&T executives have claimed that the Open RAN transition, combined with wireline network overhaul, will transform the company's "underlying cost structure" [1].

The financial evidence suggests that these promised benefits have yet to materialize. AT&T's second-quarter 2025 operating margin of 21% compares unfavorably to T-Mobile's 25% margin [1]. This performance gap is particularly significant because T-Mobile has remained "open RAN-shy" while consistently delivering superior network performance according to independent monitors like OpenSignal and Ookla.

The comparison with T-Mobile exposes one of the fundamental contradictions in AT&T's Open RAN narrative. If Open RAN truly delivered the cost advantages and operational efficiencies that AT&T claims, the company should be demonstrating superior financial performance compared to competitors who have not made similar investments. Instead, AT&T appears to be lagging behind a competitor that has focused on traditional network optimization rather than revolutionary architectural changes.

This financial underperformance becomes even more troubling when contrasted with EchoStar's achievement. Despite building a completely new network from scratch using Open RAN principles, EchoStar's Boost Mobile service has achieved superior performance metrics compared to established carriers with decades of infrastructure investment and operational experience. The OpenSignal analysis showing Boost Mobile's number one ranking in 5G reliability and coverage demonstrates that genuine Open RAN implementation can deliver both technical excellence and operational efficiency [3].

The financial implications extend beyond individual company performance to broader questions about the allocation of capital and resources in the telecommunications industry. The hundreds of millions of dollars invested in AT&T's supposed Open RAN transformation should be generating measurable returns in the form of lower costs, improved margins, or superior network performance. The absence of clear financial benefits suggests that the primary value of AT&T's Open RAN program may be reputational rather than operational.

The Innovation Destruction

The systematic subversion of Open RAN by companies like AT&T has created what economists would recognize as a classic case of market failure, where the appropriation of innovation terminology by incumbent players actively destroys the conditions necessary for genuine innovation to flourish. This destruction operates through multiple mechanisms that collectively undermine the entrepreneurial ecosystem that Open RAN was supposed to foster.

The first mechanism involves the creation of false market signals that mislead investors and entrepreneurs about the viability of Open RAN business models. When major operators like AT&T announce multi-billion dollar "Open RAN" contracts that actually represent single-vendor consolidation, they create the impression of market demand for open solutions while maintaining procurement practices that favor closed systems. This disconnect between marketing rhetoric and purchasing reality creates unsustainable business conditions for genuine Open RAN suppliers.

The collapse of companies like Mavenir illustrates how this dynamic operates in practice. Entrepreneurs and investors committed resources to developing Open RAN solutions based on public statements from major operators about their commitment to supplier diversity and open architectures. When these operators subsequently chose closed solutions while maintaining open marketing, the resulting market conditions could not support the business models that had been developed in response to apparent demand signals.

The second mechanism involves the regulatory capture that enables incumbent protection at the expense of genuine innovation. When companies like AT&T use false Open RAN credentials to influence federal policy, they create regulatory environments that protect established players while threatening disruptive competitors. The FCC pressure on EchoStar represents a textbook example of how regulatory capture can be used to eliminate competitive threats while maintaining the appearance of supporting policy objectives.

The third mechanism involves the systematic undermining of technical standards and interoperability requirements that define genuine Open RAN. When major operators deploy equipment that violates open standards while claiming Open RAN compliance, they weaken the credibility and effectiveness of the standards themselves. This erosion of technical integrity makes it more difficult for genuine Open RAN suppliers to compete on the basis of standards compliance and interoperability.

The cumulative effect of these mechanisms is the creation of market conditions that actively discourage the risk-taking and innovation that Open RAN was supposed to enable. Entrepreneurs and investors who might otherwise develop genuinely disruptive telecommunications technologies are deterred by the recognition that established players can appropriate innovation terminology while maintaining monopolistic control through regulatory capture and false market signals.

The National Security Implications

The systematic subversion of Open RAN by incumbent interests represents more than a market failure—it constitutes a direct threat to American national security and technological sovereignty. The original justification for massive federal investment in Open RAN development was based on the recognition that America's telecommunications infrastructure had become dangerously dependent on a small number of foreign suppliers, particularly Chinese companies like Huawei.

Open RAN was supposed to address this vulnerability by creating a diverse, competitive supplier ecosystem that would reduce dependence on any single vendor or country. The technology promised to enable American companies to compete effectively against established foreign giants while providing operators with genuine alternatives that would enhance both security and innovation.

EchoStar's network demonstrates that this vision was achievable. The company has built a large-scale, high-performance telecommunications network using primarily American suppliers, proving that alternatives to Chinese and European equipment giants are not only viable but can deliver superior performance. The network represents exactly what U.S. policy was designed to encourage: domestic technological capability that reduces foreign dependence while advancing American leadership in critical infrastructure.

Yet regulatory actions threaten to dismantle this success story while protecting companies that have systematically undermined the policy objectives that justified Open RAN investment. If AT&T's false claims succeed in influencing policy against EchoStar, it will send a devastating message about America's commitment to genuine technological sovereignty and innovation.

The broader implications extend to America's credibility as a leader in telecommunications technology and policy. If the U.S. cannot protect its own successful Open RAN deployments from regulatory capture by incumbent interests, it undermines American efforts to promote Open RAN adoption internationally. Allied countries and potential partners will question whether America is serious about the technological sovereignty and supplier diversity that Open RAN promises, or whether U.S. policy is ultimately captured by the same incumbent interests that dominate traditional telecommunications markets.

The timing of this regulatory capture is particularly troubling given the intensifying technological competition with China. As Chinese companies continue to advance their telecommunications capabilities and expand their global market presence, America's response should be to strengthen and protect successful domestic alternatives like EchoStar's network. Instead, regulatory pressure threatens to eliminate America's most promising Open RAN infrastructure while protecting companies that have failed to deliver genuine alternatives to foreign suppliers.

The Path Forward: Demanding Accountability

The evidence of Open RAN's systematic subversion by incumbent interests, combined with the regulatory manipulation that threatens genuine innovation, demands immediate and decisive action from policymakers, investors, and industry observers. The stakes are too high and the deception too systematic to accept continued inaction or incremental responses.

The first requirement is transparency and accountability in how companies describe their Open RAN implementations. Rather than accepting marketing claims about Open RAN leadership, regulators should require demonstrated technical compliance with open standards and genuine multivendor interoperability as conditions for favorable regulatory treatment or public funding. Companies that deploy equipment violating open standards while claiming Open RAN compliance should face regulatory consequences, not regulatory protection.

The second requirement is the protection and support of genuine Open RAN deployments like EchoStar's network. Regulatory actions that threaten successful Open RAN implementations while protecting companies with hollow claims represent a fundamental misalignment of policy with stated objectives. The FCC should recognize EchoStar's network as a national strategic asset that validates American technological capabilities and supports policy objectives related to supplier diversity and telecommunications sovereignty.

The third requirement is the investigation and exposure of regulatory capture mechanisms that enable incumbent protection at the expense of innovation. The influence of companies like AT&T on federal telecommunications policy should be examined in light of their systematic subversion of Open RAN principles and their use of false credentials to influence policy against genuine competitors.

The fourth requirement is the development of procurement and funding mechanisms that support genuine Open RAN deployment while excluding companies that have demonstrated systematic non-compliance with open standards. Federal agencies and programs that support Open RAN development should prioritize companies that have demonstrated genuine commitment to open architectures over those that have appropriated open terminology for marketing purposes.

The fifth requirement is international coordination to ensure that American Open RAN policy supports genuine technological sovereignty rather than incumbent protection. Allied countries and international partners should be informed about the distinction between genuine Open RAN implementations like EchoStar's network and the hollow claims made by companies like AT&T. This coordination is essential to maintain credibility for American leadership in Open RAN development and deployment.

The evidence is clear, the deception is documented, and the national security implications are profound. The systematic subversion of Open RAN represents one of the most sophisticated examples of corporate capture in modern telecommunications history, with implications that extend far beyond individual company competition to fundamental questions about America's technological sovereignty and innovation capacity.

The only question remaining is whether American policymakers will recognize the manipulation and act to protect genuine innovation, or whether they will continue to enable the regulatory capture that threatens to destroy America's most promising Open RAN infrastructure. The answer will determine not just the future of Open RAN, but America's credibility as a leader in the technologies that will define the next generation of global competition.

The time for half-measures and incremental responses has passed. The deception runs too deep, the stakes are too high, and the evidence is too overwhelming to accept continued inaction. America must choose between protecting incumbent interests and fostering genuine innovation—and that choice must be made before the regulatory manipulation succeeds in destroying what genuine innovators have built.

References

[1] Morris, Iain. "AT&T is still kidding everyone about doing open RAN." Light Reading, August 14, 2025. https://www.lightreading.com/open-ran/at-t-is-still-kidding-everyone-about-doing-open-ran

[2] Synthetic Wisdom. "The 'Genius-Level 5G Core': How EchoStar's Hidden Technical Excellence Positions It as the Foundation for AI Device Ecosystems." August 1, 2025. https://trmcdonald.substack.com/p/the-genius-level-5g-core-how-echostars

[3] Synthetic Wisdom. "Is the FCC Trying to Kill Open RAN? Chairman Carr's Letter to EchoStar Sends a Dangerous Signal." May 15, 2025. https://trmcdonald.substack.com/p/is-the-fcc-trying-to-kill-open-ran

[4] Synthetic Wisdom. "The Great Open RAN Deception: How Telecom Giants Hijacked a Revolution." July 15, 2025.