Open radio access network (RAN) proponents frequently pit the technology as an alternative to Chinese vendor equipment, but Strand Consult CEO John Strand doesn’t buy that.

“The Chinese are involved in 3GPP and a lot of other standards bodies. That’s fine. But what I’m an opponent against is those who claim that open RAN is a medicine against Chinese equipment,” Strand said in a phone interview.

“It’s a little bit like, oh you have an alcohol problem, and the way you solve it is switching from beers to wine,” he said.

The head of the Denmark-based consultancy notes at least 44 China-based companies are participants in the O-RAN Alliance, including China Mobile, one of five founding members of the group considered the most powerful among a somewhat scattered push to develop and advance disaggregated and open architectures in mobile networks.

Strand claims multiple sources familiar with the inner workings of the O-RAN Alliance have determined Huawei is heavily involved in the organization even though it’s not a formal member. “It’s important to understand that China Mobile is Huawei’s largest customer. China Mobile has more mobile subscribers than all the European and the North American carriers together. … And it’s controlled by the Chinese government,” he said.

“I have no problem with the Chinese contribution, you just have to have transparency about it,” Strand said.

Multiple sources at the O-RAN Alliance, including a project manager and co-chair of the technical steering committee, declined to confirm, deny, or comment about the extent of indirect influence Huawei has in the group. The Chinese powerhouse and world’s largest RAN supplier is blacklisted by regulators in the U.S. and other Western countries due to national security concerns.

Because the O-RAN Alliance is a technical specifications organization and not a standards body, it isn’t subject to the same level of transparency and openness as 3GPP, for example. Nokia froze activities in the O-RAN Alliance this summer over concerns about working with other China-based participants that are also blacklisted by the U.S. government.

The group quickly, albeit ambiguously, acquiesced to Nokia’s demands by clarifying that all participating companies can access and make technical contributions.

The O-RAN Alliance later published a blog post that outlined its commitment to be “open and transparent,” but it has yet to share specifics other than to claim it is “not a lobbying or policy influencing organization” and it “does not engage in any political, governmental, or regulatory activities in any region or country.” The group also said all decisions are based on a two-thirds majority and “no member has veto power.”

Strand remains unmoved by those pledges and asserts “China Mobile is doing the dirty job for Huawei” by sharing ongoing details about the technical work underway and possibly making contributions at the behest of Huawei. 

He also contends that if the O-RAN Alliance was truly open, all of this information and the amount of contributions from each member would be publicly available. “In open source software there’s total transparency about these things. Here, no transparency,” Strand said.

“Don’t go out and claim that this is an alternative to the Chinese because they’re just as involved,” he said. “Open RAN is just as Chinese as Huawei equipment. Full stop.”

Chinese companies’ involvement in the O-RAN Alliance, a fact well documented on the group’s site, completely contradicts the message of many open RAN vendors that portray themselves as a replacement for Chinese equipment. And even if they really mean to suggest open RAN is an alternative to Huawei, ZTE, and other blacklisted companies, it remains doubtful these powerful companies aren’t at least indirectly involved. 

“I have nothing against open RAN,” Strand said. His issue rests with the lack of transparency from the O-RAN Alliance and the disingenuous messages from open RAN vendors and government officials that push open RAN as a substitute for untrusted Chinese equipment.