We might consider the following as the main risks for the telecoms: competitive pressure and inability to address it timely and effectively.
For a number of years OTT* providers like Skype are grabbing market share from the telecoms. New services appear regularly and it is not often that ISPs** could provide competitive services promptly. It happens mainly due to vendor locks and lack of innovative capabilities internally.
The opponents of NFV might say that the NFV reference architecture locks the situation even further. However, if we look how it works, we discover that it is not as descriptive as the standards developed in a conventional way.
First, the NFV architecture is closer to a descriptive approach. The specifications are focused on the high-level overview what is good to have in main building blocks and interfaces between them. Then, instead of going through the standards bodies and wait several years until vendors agree on what is convenient for them, the requirements are immediately implemented and tested in open communities. A collaborative efforts like OpenStack, OpenDaylight, ONOS implement the requirements. OPNFV*** integrate the components, test how it works, upstream the updated requirements. The vendors and telecoms leverage what becomes available. The loop closes much faster.
Another advantage of the open developments is that it is very natural for them when varous components from different vendors and developers work smoothly in the integrated system. The majority of the telecoms are not the leading developers themselves, but the approach itself enables them to integrate and use what is available on the market. Thus, they could answer the competitive threats much faster, than with vendor-centric solutions.
---
*OTT - over-the-top
**ISP - Internet service provider
***OPNFV - Open Platform for NFV