Open RAN: All Of This And Nothing?

Dominoes. A pack of cards. A picture of The Queen. A dress to wear on Sundays. And a handle for the door.

A letter that I sent for you. A note you left for me. A wave. A pack of cigarettes. A pocket full of beads.

You didn't leave me anything that I can understand.

If you're of a certain generation, you'll immediately recognize the lyrics of a classic Psychedelic Furs song. Some say it's THE definitive Psychedelic Furs song. I say it's the song that comes to mind as I think about Open RAN circa 2021.

Don't get me wrong. I am not expecting Open RAN to break up with anyone in the near-term. But I do think the narrative around it can feel so very diverse - so super-inclusive - that it's nearly random. When so many different companies attach themselves to a topic, in so many different ways, the overall story can come off as contrived or meaningless. And that's never a good thing.

This came into focus for me last week as I prepared for a client presentation on Open RAN use cases in emerging markets. Their point of departure was a view that Open RAN is mostly about 5G and mature markets. Where headlines about Open RAN focus on operators like Rakuten, Dish, or European heavyweights, I completely understood the view. And, where Facebook pushed Open RAN into mainstrean consciousness with a "shared goal of connecting the world," I also understood the view that Open RAN was only about rural or emerging market connectivity and not built for demanding use cases.

Yep, these are diametrically opposed views. But trying to pin down a single, united view of Open RAN is a losing battle.

Think about the core value prop. Is it cost savings? Vendor diversity? New tech innovation? Business innovation?

Let's say it's cost savings (because, well, many people DO say this). Which types of costs? CapEx thanks to lower cost gear and increased competition? OpEx thanks to simplified operations? Scratch that, then. Maybe it's really about supply chain diversity in defiance of vendor lock-in. Cool. But as operators carve out their own Open RAN ecosystems, aren't they just fostering a new generation of lock-in? And, ultimately, there's nothing that mandates Open RAN compliant deployments involve more than a single vendor, right?

Okay, so maybe it's better to focus on use cases. We've already established that these could be emerging markets OR mature ones. Rural OR urban. That implies that we could be talking about public. Or private networks? Operator deployed? Enterprise deployed?

Surely, talking about Open RAN from a technology perspective will be easier. I mean, it's 2021, so we're not still conflating Open RAN and vRAN. Are we? And we're not running before we walk by introducing and takling up new cabilities like the RIC. Of course not. Heck, the real Open RAN enablers aren't actually in the RAN but rather in the transport, operations, and cloud domains. That's not a confusing message at all.

You might be thinking to yourself, "this is all a rather silly rant from an Open RAN detractor, there is no reason why a technology cannot be more than one thing at once." If, indeed, that's what you are thinking, you are half correct.

Technologies can always be viewed through multiple lenses. Traditional RAN solutions, for example, serve emerging and developed markets, relying heavily on non-RAN gear to deliver services. They can support public and private use cases. Rural and urban. A broad, diverse narrative isn't unique to Open RAN. In fact, it's a sign that Open RAN is more than just a niche technology with a narrow use case. It's a a sign that Open RAN is quickly evolving into a complete ecosystem. Diverse use cases and a broad ecosystem explain why so many analysts forecast a substantial Open RAN market value.

So, what's the problem?

The problem is that Open RAN is still in the process of going mainstream. This means it has operators who are trying to understand it. More importantly, it's also got detractors trying to tear it down - or, at least, inject some FUD into the narrative. A plethora of different narratives - particularly when positoned as either/or dynamics - will only play into that FUD and leave plenty of operators confused...and open to the messaging from Open RAN detractors). The same holds for messaging that claims near-term Open RAN success hinges on new innovations or specific solution components, even while they are just only getting commercialized.

Given the breadth of the Open RAN ecosystem, it's completely unrealistic to expect everyone's marketing to align. Yet, the examples I called out earlier - OpEx vs. CapEx, rural vs. urban, RAN innovation vs. everything else - are all things I've seen operators struggle with. And where messages are intentionally polarizing, there's a real risk that would-be Open RAN supporters feel gifted with a myriad of random bits and piece, yet nothing they can understand.