A majority of operators (59%) want multi-vendor RAN deployments that integrate new and traditional vendors, says a new Heavy Reading survey.
Sponsored by Qualcomm
Operators, especially large operators, are committed to multi-vendor open RAN deployments, according to the new Heavy Reading 2024 Open RAN Operator Survey. When asked what type of vendor(s) their company plans to use for its open RAN deployment, 59% of respondents said they anticipate a "multi-vendor environment" comprising "new vendors with traditional RAN vendors." This result is far ahead of the 20% who chose "a new single vendor that is O-RAN compliant."
For operators with revenue of more than $5bn, the "new vendors with traditional RAN vendors" option rises to 69%. And for operators that have revenue of more than $5bn and expect to have live deployment by the end of 2025, the figure rises further to 75%. This is a strong signal that operators will continue to encourage the ecosystem to deliver multi-vendor open RAN solutions.
However, the survey does not tell us about the balance of vendors in potential open RAN deployments. It is plausible, for example, that respondents have in mind a network that will mostly be from a single vendor that is O-RAN compliant, with only a small amount of multi-vendor equipment. Or they could be thinking of deployments that will be heavily multi-vendor and well-balanced between new and established vendors.
In a separate question, "vendor optionality" is identified as a critical advantage of open RAN. The figure below shows that, with a score of 40%, "optionality to choose the best vendor solutions for your network's needs" is identified as the primary benefit of open RAN, with twice the support of the next nearest option. This number jumps to a majority of 63% when only larger operators with more than $5bn in revenue are considered. This is another signal that operators want multi-vendor open RAN.
What is the primary benefit your company expects from open RAN?
"Optionality" is important to the survey wording because while it implies an appetite for multi-vendor RAN, it does not specify multi-vendor. This answer leaves the door open to operators selecting a single, O-RAN-compatible lead vendor and then having the option to use different vendors as circumstances require. For example, an operator could add a new vendor to serve a use case or because it offers an additional feature or best-in-class performance. Or the operator may add a vendor simply to maintain commercial tension over the lifetime of the deployment.
The value of optionality, however, will only be crystallized if operators follow through and actually implement multi-vendor RANs. Without showing it is possible, in practice, to combine vendors in a live deployment using O-RAN Alliance specifications, the value of optionality will quickly fade. Operators know they need to exercise the multi-vendor option if they want open RAN to succeed.
As always, there are some caveats and unknowns, but the general sentiment expressed by the survey is clear: there is positive demand for multi-vendor open RAN.
It is also worth remembering that multi-vendor itself should not be the ultimate aim of open RAN, but a means to an end. A multi-vendor-vendor RAN strategy will succeed if it helps build more cost efficient, programmable, adaptable and high performance mobile networks.
The full report is available to download here.
This blog is sponsored by Qualcomm.
Read more about:
Heavy Reading ResearchYou May Also Like
