[ferdek]

In addition this article is also strongly opinionated, charged with emotions, feels like stitched together without second reading IMHO. Like:

> It would allow operators to procure [...] with different players to piece together a 5G network, breaking the market power of “end-to-end” vendors like Ericsson and Nokia.

And later: > the O-RAN Alliance. It's a standard-setting body that includes [...] leading vendors Ericsson and Nokia.

First, it doesn't work like that. They will still offer end-to-end deals, even with ORAN, it's just that winning conditions change. Second, why would companies support standardization effort that is supposedly intended to "harm" them? :D

> The operators, now barred by governments from using Huawei in several European markets, see Open RAN as a fix to what they consider a duopoly in the vendor market that allows Ericsson and Nokia to charge higher prices for 5G equipment.

I LOL'ed. From what I know, Ericsson and Nokia does not charge higher prices for 5G equipment due to duopoly, because that would be called price collusion and the journalists don't have proof to back it up. Also, Ericsson and Nokia are fighting each other for every piece of market share, I don't see how pumping up the prices would help here.

[heimatau]

> Second, why would companies support standardization effort that is supposedly intended to "harm" them? :D

IMHO because decent regulations say so. AT&T has to comply with splitting up but did AT&T go extinct? Even though the situation isn't explicitly the same, the concept that government regulations are changing the market and it's direct effects are fairly similar. In the case above, Ericsson and Nokia are players that the government want to see exist in the market but for this specific aspect of the industry, they want to see a reduced role.

IMHO, it's government trying to work better on a very important topic (for the nation, for the people, and for the global market place [more competition for Huawei).