FCC Next Steps on ORAN Unclear, May Have to Wait for Permanent Chair

The FCC's next steps on open radio access networks are unclear, three months after the agency wrapped up a comment cycle on a notice of inquiry, industry experts told us. The big question they have is what the FCC could propose in an NPRM that would help speed the deployment of ORAN. Experts said acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and other commissioners see open networks as offering an alternative to an equipment market with a limited number of players, but a decision may have to wait for a permanent chair and full contingent of commissioners.

Almost all commenters preferred operator choice over government mandates or preferences for ORAN (see 2104290035 and 2106010036). Commenters also agreed open networks will mean more supplier diversity. Among those who urge a more aggressive policy, Altiostar said the commission “should explicitly mandate open and interoperable interfaces.” Mavenir urged a rulemaking “to open the RAN to free and open competition.” The FCC declined comment.

The FCC should “move expeditiously” on an NPRM “motivating carriers to adopt [ORAN] principles for all 5G/LTE wireless networks in the U.S.,” Mavenir CEO Pardeep Kohli told us. “We remain highly optimistic about the FCC’s interest in open RAN and expect their work to diversify the vendor ecosystem to continue.” ORAN is “being deployed right now, and we know that many carriers, including Montana’s Triangle Communications, who we recently partnered with, are eager to future proof their networks by not locking into a specific vendor long term,” he said.

ORAN doesn’t dictate a technology choice, Kohli said: It’s “a mobile network procurement approach that ensures a more diverse supply chain and increases vendor choice and security.”

The biggest thing the FCC can do is allocate more spectrum that can be used by private wireless networks, said Vinay Ravuri, CEO of technology company EdgeQ. “The FCC did a decent job on Wi-Fi,” reallocating the 6 GHz band, he said. “Cellular doesn’t operate like Wi-Fi, you can’t have multiple people hovering over each other like that,” he said. The FCC should also promote better spectrum harmonization, which is important to equipment makers, he said.

The FCC could also help by focusing on the need for integrators who can help operators deal with making the parts of open networks work together, Ravuri said. “That doesn’t exist and industry has to figure that out,” he said. Carriers are used to a single company offering all network components, he said. Companies deploying ORAN also need more information to make decisions, he said: “There’s just no way to judge what solution is good today and what is not good.” Ravuri is skeptical of testbeds. “Any time the government does testbeds it’s just too slow and too long,” he said. Europe has lots of testbeds, but “I’m not sure that’s helping move the needle at all,” he said.

Last month, NTIA largely endorsed ORAN (see 2107160042), but warned “it is not a replacement for governments taking action in collaboration with industry to protect critical infrastructure … from a full range of security threats, including those posed by untrusted, high-risk vendors.” The administration “is actively investigating what options would be best suited to incentivize domestic production of 5G infrastructure, including Open RAN, and grants and tax incentives are both under consideration,” NTIA said.

The ORAN debate in the U.S. “is out of sync with the reality,” said consultant John Strand, forwarding a document he created to respond to the NTIA comments. ORAN is “an industrial concept, not a per se technical standard,” the document says. Strand notes Chinese vendors, including those against which the FCC has imposed restrictions, are members of the international O-RAN Alliance. “NTIA has not conducted a security assessment of OpenRAN and yet it blesses the technology and pronounces that it is Executive Branch policy to pursue it,” he said: “This is a breathtaking omission that alone warrants further attention by NTIA.”

“There’s a real question about what does it mean for the government to promote a certain technology,” said a telecom industry lawyer, who expects no action before the White House names a permanent chair at the FCC.

“At the end of the day a technology neutral approach, since you do not know how markets are going to evolve, what technologies are going to be needed to do what, is still the best policy,” said Melissa Newman, TIA vice president-government affairs.

"The uncertainty of who is going to run the FCC on a permanent basis could have an effect on important issues like ORAN as well as laying the groundwork for 6G,” said Cooley’s Robert McDowell, a former commissioner. “It is likely that decisions on some big picture policy cuts are delayed until” the agency has a full panel, he said.

“Encourage and promote, yes -- require and prescribe, no,” said Recon Analytics’ Roger Entner: “Technology moves a lot faster than regulations.” Funding for testbeds and R&D has to come from Congress and the House can approve the funding Senate has already passed, said Doug Brake, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation director-broadband and spectrum policy, who filed in the FCC proceeding.

Others said the FCC should act on an NPRM as quickly as possible. Under Rosenworcel, the FCC established innovation zones in North Carolina and Massachusetts (see 2108050056), incorporated ORAN into the cost catalog for replacing Chinese gear (see 2108040056) and hosted an ORAN vendor showcase earlier this summer (see 2107140056).

“The FCC has more than enough consensus on the record to put out a proposed rule that favors operator choice and tech-neutral approach to ORAN deployment,” said Lincoln Network lawyer Joel Thayer. “The agency should not be dragging its feet on this issue, because we need to use everything in our arsenal to be leaders in 5G,” he said: “Sadly, the longer the FCC waits the more steam Chinese-run companies, like Huawei and ZTE, gain, and, worse, makes ORAN deployments regimes more difficult to implement.”

“The FCC can certainly play an important role in convening discussions and facilitating information sharing, which will continue to be valuable,” Brake said.