Open RAN’s Fate Hinges on Economics, Not Ideology

The Standard Is Set, but the Battle Is Far from Over

Last week, a quiet but seismic shift occurred in the telecom industry’s perception of Open RAN. In a terse newsletter item, RCR Wireless News relayed Dell’Oro Group’s latest take: “Open RAN is evolving from a promise of supplier diversity toward a more pragmatic focus on interface standardization.” The subtext? The ideological fervor that once surrounded Open RAN—the belief that it would shatter proprietary lock-in and usher in a golden age of multi-vendor, best-of-breed networks—has given way to a sobering reality. Open RAN, as Dell’Oro put it, “has ended up being just a standard.” That’s not a dismissal; it’s a reckoning. And it’s exactly the kind of clarity the industry needs.

For years, Open RAN has been sold as a movement. It was going to democratize radio access, lower barriers to entry, and create a vibrant ecosystem of challenger vendors. Governments poured billions into trials, operators made bold public commitments, and startups flourished on the promise of a post-proprietary world. But as the sector matures, the hard questions are no longer about ideology. They’re about economics. Can Open RAN deliver the same performance as integrated, optimized, single-vendor RAN systems at a competitive cost? Can it be deployed and maintained without overwhelming operational complexity? And crucially, can it evolve to embrace the next big thing—AI-RAN—without becoming a science project that never sees the light of day?

Dell’Oro’s framing is a wake-up call. The war for Open RAN’s soul is over; the war for its bankability has just begun. As we look at the latest developments—from Nvidia’s massive financing moves to Celona’s foray into AI-driven private networks—the thread that ties them together is the same: the telecom industry is no longer asking whether Open RAN works. It’s asking whether it pays.

The Dell’Oro Verdict: Standardization Is Not Salvation

Let’s unpack what Dell’Oro actually said. In the RCR Wireless piece, the analyst firm notes that Open RAN is “evolving from a promise of supplier diversity toward a more pragmatic focus on interface standardization.” That’s a profound shift in emphasis. Supplier diversity was the rallying cry of the early Open RAN movement—the idea that operators would mix and match radio units from one vendor, baseband from another, and software from a third, creating a competitive marketplace that would drive down costs and spur innovation. But the reality has been messier. Integration costs have proven stubbornly high, performance gaps persist, and the operational complexity of managing multiple vendors has often eaten away at any savings.

Standardization, by contrast, is about ensuring that different components can talk to each other via open interfaces. It’s a necessary condition for multi-vendor deployments, but it’s not sufficient. As Dell’Oro notes, “It is not whether the RAN can be virtualized, but whether it can be virtualized economically.” That’s the crux. Virtualization, disaggregation, open interfaces—they’re all means to an end. If they don’t result in lower total cost of ownership or new revenue opportunities, they’re just engineering exercises.

The article also points out that “operators have sprawling estates, always in flux, besides any new-fangled RAN: spectrum, fiber transport, operational back-ends, power systems.” In other words, RAN decisions are not made in a vacuum. An operator might love the idea of an open, virtualized RAN, but if it doesn’t integrate seamlessly with existing OSS/BSS, if it requires new skills that are hard to find, or if it consumes more power than a traditional RAN, the business case collapses. Ericsson, Huawei, and Nokia kit is “generally good,” as the piece notes, and operators know how to run it. The bar for Open RAN to displace that is high—and it’s getting higher.

The AI-RAN Distraction: A New Hope or a New Hype?

Enter AI-RAN. The industry’s latest savior is the marriage of artificial intelligence and radio access networks. The idea is tantalizing: use AI to optimize spectrum efficiency, automate network management, and even run inference workloads on the same hardware. Nvidia, in particular, has been pushing this vision hard, partnering with Nokia, Ericsson, and others to bring GPU-accelerated RAN to market. But Dell’Oro’s caution is apt: “AI-RAN might change the calculation – if operators are going to deploy accelerated compute for network optimization and edge inference services, then utilization looks better.”

That’s a big if. Operators are not in the business of running data centers at the edge just for fun. They need to see a return on investment. If AI-RAN can genuinely deliver 3x spectral efficiency, as Nvidia claimed in its SoftBank field trials, then the economics might work. But the proof is in the deployment, not the demo. And as we’ve seen with Open RAN, there’s a long road from a successful trial to a commercial rollout.

Moreover, the AI-RAN conversation is already getting crowded. The Open RAN blog has covered the AI-RAN Alliance, Nokia’s commercial platform, Samsung’s 6G vision, and a host of other developments. The risk is that AI-RAN becomes the new Open RAN—a buzzword that promises everything but delivers little, at least in the near term. Operators are right to be skeptical.

The Real Question: Can Open RAN Be Economically Viable?

So what does this mean for Open RAN? It means the focus must shift from ideology to pragmatism. The question is not whether Open RAN is open, but whether it’s better. Better in terms of cost, performance, and operational efficiency. And that’s a question that can only be answered with real-world deployments, not whitepapers.

Take the recent Celona announcement, for example. Celona, a private 5G specialist, is launching Orion, an “agentic converged wireless platform” that combines private 5G, Wi-Fi, satellite, and public network support, managed by AI agents. It’s a bold move that acknowledges a key reality: enterprises don’t care about the underlying technology; they care about outcomes. They want connectivity that works, that’s secure, and that can support the next wave of industrial automation and robotics. Celona’s pitch is that by integrating multiple wireless technologies and using AI to manage them, they can deliver a better experience at a lower cost. That’s the kind of thinking that will make Open RAN successful—not as a standard, but as a solution.

Similarly, the news that Nvidia is lining up $500 billion in financing for AI infrastructure is a sign that the compute side of the equation is getting serious. But as the Telecoms.com article notes, the “AI hype train runs low on fuel” when it comes to delivering actual returns. Nvidia’s financing is a bet on the future, not a guarantee. Operators will need to see tangible benefits before they open their wallets.

The Operational Imperative: Integration and Automation

Another lesson from Dell’Oro’s analysis is the importance of operational integration. Open RAN can’t be an island. It has to work with the operator’s existing OSS/BSS, security frameworks, and network management systems. That’s where the real costs—and savings—lie. Ericsson’s recent move to reframe OSS/BSS around agentic AI is a case in point. The company is essentially saying that the future of network operations is not just about the RAN, but about the entire software stack that runs the network. By embedding AI agents into OSS/BSS, they’re aiming to reduce the manual effort required to manage complex networks, which could be a game-changer for Open RAN deployments.

The same logic applies to the RAN itself. If Open RAN can be automated to the point where it’s easier to manage than a traditional RAN, then the integration costs become less daunting. But that’s a big if. The industry is still in the early stages of AI-driven network automation, and the promised benefits are far from proven.

The Bottom Line: Open RAN’s Future Is Economic, Not Ideological

Dell’Oro’s assessment that Open RAN has “ended up being just a standard” is not a euphemism for failure. It’s a recognition that the movement has achieved its first goal—establishing open interfaces—and now faces a harder challenge: proving that those interfaces can deliver commercial value. The standard is necessary, but not sufficient. Operators will adopt Open RAN not because it’s open, but because it’s better for their bottom line.

As we look at the landscape in August 2026, the signs are mixed. On one hand, there are encouraging developments: AI-RAN trials showing real gains, new platforms like Celona’s Orion that simplify private networks, and a growing recognition that integration and automation are the keys to success. On the other hand, the industry is still grappling with the fundamental economics. The cost of integration, the performance trade-offs, and the operational complexity remain significant hurdles.

What Operators Should Do Now

My advice to operators is simple: stop treating Open RAN as a religion and start treating it as a tool. Evaluate it on its merits, in your network, with your traffic, and your cost structure. Don’t be swayed by hype, whether it’s about supplier diversity or AI-RAN. Instead, ask the hard questions: Will this save me money? Will it improve my customers’ experience? Can I operate it efficiently? If the answer is yes, then deploy it. If not, wait.

And for the industry as a whole, the focus should be on making Open RAN work economically. That means investing in automation, simplifying integration, and delivering real-world proof points. It means moving beyond the standard and into the realm of operational excellence. The standard is set; now it’s time to make it pay.

In the end, Open RAN’s fate will be decided not by its open interfaces, but by its ability to deliver value. The sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can get on with the real work of building the networks of the future.

Sources

• Tuesday (telco diary) | About open RAN, c/o Dell’Oro… - RCR Wireless News
• AI hype train runs low on fuel as Nvidia lines up $500bn of financing - Telecoms
• Celona expands private 5G to meet the rise of physical AI - Light Reading
• Ericsson reframes OSS/BSS modernization around agentic AI and business outcomes - RCR Wireless News