by John Baker
Washington has had two laudable goals when it comes to spurring deployment of 5G networks: Block untrusted vendors from U.S. networks, and boost American leadership in this new, game-changing era of mobile connectivity.
We’re one for two.
Though the U.S. has largely succeeded in diminishing the reach of untrusted Chinese vendors, we haven’t made enough progress in fostering U.S.-headquartered vendors as global leaders in mobile infrastructure — the building blocks that mobile service providers and large global enterprises rely on to run their networks. Instead, it appears we are shifting control of the market to a different foreign duopoly.
Policymakers have been well-intentioned in their efforts to safeguard our networks and boost U.S. providers. But a crucial step in fixing any problem is recognizing the necessary scope of the solution, so let me say it unabashedly: If we want to diversify the 5G supply chain and have U.S.-headquartered vendors building the technology that powers next-generation networks, we must take direct and unequivocal action to build a market that prioritizes and incentivizes the use of U.S. suppliers domestically and abroad.
I recognize this may be a new tune; the U.S. has not previously pursued such policies when it comes to telecommunications equipment. Now, however, it is a necessity. As competing nations around the globe build their own next-generation networks, countries in South America, Asia and Europe are unapologetically implementing their own aggressive policies that preference local suppliers. Candidly, if we want a more robust mobile ecosystem where U.S.-headquartered companies lead the world in 5G, then we must be willing to give them a leg up.
In the wireless world, however, this is not simply a case of pushing Boeing over Airbus. There is no single American behemoth that sells the network infrastructure mobile carriers need; rather, there are many viable American companies all vying to engage. And so rather than advocate for a particular American company, our policies must advocate for an American principle: competition.
For mobile networks, this competition has a name, and it’s OpenRAN. While traditional, foreign vendors sell mostly closed, proprietary equipment that effectively blocks other vendors from equipping or servicing networks, American vendors largely sell products that adhere to the principles of OpenRAN — a modern approach to mobile networking that’s based on open interfaces, creates lower costs, and gives mobile carriers more flexibility and vendor choice. This is the reality: The best way to prioritize American leadership in 5G is to create policies that prioritize OpenRAN.
Policymakers appear eager for OpenRAN — at last week’s FCC meeting where the Commission voted to build a record of support for it, Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel declared that the country “must take action to speed up American innovation.” And Congress has also taken small steps to support OpenRAN, including creating a grant program to advance deployments — but that program remains unfunded. Certainly, there is much more we can and must do.
First, the government should offer certain incentives like loan guarantees, grants, tax incentives, and demonstration sites that will help propel mobile carriers to pursue OpenRAN solutions beyond the trial phase.
Second, we should require dominant legacy vendors to open their closed interfaces if they want to build networks with U.S. government money. It makes no sense to give American taxpayer dollars to two foreign-based companies so that they can continue to sell the same proprietary architecture. Failing to mandate open interfaces only serves to perpetuate foreign dominance in the U.S. market while hurting American companies trying to supplant them with OpenRAN.
Third, the U.S. must be willing to make its preference for OpenRAN known to mobile operators — doing so will help influence industry to more rapidly adopt them. Here, too, the U.S. is behind. While many U.S. mobile carriers support OpenRAN generally, their European counterparts are taking a leadership role — and five major European operators have gone as far as to sign a memorandum committing to put OpenRAN in their networks. American policymakers should encourage U.S. carriers to make the same pledge.
If policymakers take these three steps, they will significantly advance the global deployment of American infrastructure. If they don’t, it will be exceedingly difficult for U.S. vendors to crack the current duopoly’s stranglehold on the market.
Even more enticingly, promoting OpenRAN means more than supporting American vendors and American technology — it means networks that are more secure and more easily upgraded, too. Real competition brings real innovation, which is why OpenRAN equates to better network performance, faster deployments, and more resilient systems, all at lower costs. And it is ready to be put in the field right now: More than 40 mobile operators across the globe have deployed or are in the process of putting OpenRAN solutions in their networks.
Simply put: There will be no American companies building 5G (or 6G) networks if the U.S. does not prioritize OpenRAN and the U.S. vendors who provide it. OpenRAN is our opportunity to level the playing field as the world develops and deploys 5G. It would be a mistake to squander it.
John Baker is senior vice president for business development of Mavenir.
