OMS & FIX - a walled garden?

Interesting story from the trenches…
A well-known OMS platform has implemented a contractual change whereby buy-side clients are asked to pay for each FIX connection implemented by the buy-side itself.  So they are not paying for a real service, they are on the receiving end of a golden screwdriver.

This business model is enforced through the interface between the OMS and the FIX engine having a golden screwdriver license model. Every time the buy-sides wants a new FIX session in production they need a new license file. If the buy-side is using an EMS whereby tag 76 is passed though, then a new license file is not required, but there is a periodic audit test to check that new tag76 mappings have been created.  And again – pay for the tag 76 mapping.
If a sell-side counterparty or connectivity provider does not pay the OMS vendor this “tax” then theoretically the OMS vendor can prevent the buy-side trading with them.

Lets look at a few dynamics:
  • OMS vendors push into the equity EMS space
  • OMS vendors push into the connectivity network space
  • EMS vendors add OMS functionality
  • OMS vendors try and add in Fixed Income EMS capability
  • EMS vendors try and add in Fixed Income EMS capability
  • OMS vendors try and add in market data distribution
  • EMS vendors have market data distribution 
Add these up and do we see a move to a "walled garden" whereby OMS and EMS vendors charge the market a "tax"?

Is this viable in a post MiFID 2 world?