Nokia's mobile networks chief has dismissed suggestions that open RAN has stalled, telling Light Reading in an interview that "open RAN is not dead" despite a run of setbacks that have fueled operator anxiety over vendor concentration.

His remarks address a live industry worry. Across Europe and North America, operators have watched the open radio access network market mature more slowly than the marketing of 2020 to 2022 promised, while procurement decisions continue to favor the two heavyweights: Ericsson and Huawei. Nokia itself sits outside that pairing in several key accounts, which gives the comment commercial context.

What did the Nokia executive actually say?

The mobile boss's core message was blunt: reports of open RAN's death are premature. He told Light Reading that the architecture remains central to how operators want to buy radio networks, and that momentum persists even where headline trials have quietly wound down.

That is a vendor claim, and it should be read as one. Nokia sells both traditional RAN and open RAN products, so the executive has a direct interest in keeping operator demand for interoperable interfaces alive. What gives the statement weight is the duopoly backdrop he invoked: operators fear a market in which Ericsson and Huawei dominate radio equipment pricing and roadmap control, and open RAN is the main structural counterweight available to them.

Why do operators fear a duopoly?

The concern is not abstract. Vendor exits and consolidation over the past several years have shrunk the pool of viable radio suppliers for large-scale national deployments. Operators that once could play Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei, Samsung and ZTE against each other now face a narrower field, complicated further by security regimes that exclude Huawei and ZTE from several Western markets.

The result is pricing pressure on buyers and reduced leverage in negotiations. Open RAN, by splitting the radio unit from the baseband and software layers and standardizing interfaces, is the industry's principal mechanism for widening the supplier base. If open RAN stalls, the duopoly argument runs, operator leverage weakens further.

Where does open RAN actually stand?

The executive's defense arrives after a difficult stretch. Several high-profile operator engagements have produced limited commercial follow-through, and some carriers have deferred full-scale open RAN rollouts in favor of targeted deployments. Critics have read that pattern as evidence the movement has lost momentum.

The counter-position, which the Nokia executive articulated, holds that early deployments were always going to be incremental and that the architecture's value grows as more operators refresh 5G equipment in the second half of the decade. Commercial reality sits somewhere between the two: open RAN has not displaced traditional RAN at scale anywhere, but it also has not disappeared from operator roadmaps.

What changes for practitioners?

For operator procurement teams, the statement signals that a third major vendor intends to keep investing in open interfaces rather than retreating to closed architectures. For smaller component and software suppliers, it suggests the interoperability ecosystem still has a committed anchor tenant. For regulators watching market concentration in radio access equipment, it reinforces open RAN as the policy instrument of choice.

The executive's intervention also serves Nokia's own positioning. By championing open RAN's survival while rivals consolidate, Nokia differentiates itself as the scale vendor most willing to accommodate operator demands for supplier diversity.

Whether open RAN's next phase delivers volume deployments or remains a niche procurement option will depend on operator refresh cycles and the pace at which standards-based interfaces prove they can match integrated RAN on performance and total cost. On that evidence, the market, not vendor statements, will deliver the verdict.