Hi Root,
Well, I'm not sure if there's anything new here in terms of a convincing argument re the MNOs. I know what you believe. I have no problem with you believing it. I see more assertions of your belief here.
But if you are wanting to strengthen your case that the MNOs are supportive, or even happy-go-lucky, about the MTM technology, as you and weby suggest, then you will doubtless find positive commentary from the MNOs about it, and work that is being done to ensure they work together harmoniously, as you think they must.
I shall just try to clarify what I have written previously, which isn't entirely negative, but it is sceptical and it does attempt to be pragmatic amongst the commercial politics of this space.
First, I mentioned that the level playing field architecture looks preferable in many ways, but in one way in particular: the potential benefit to consumers. But I don't confuse what I want, and what people along the supply chain want. I don't make an argument that extends back from my desired outcome. I make one based upon my understanding of what the world looks willing to accept based on survival instincts, incumbent preference and suchlike. I may, of course, be wrong, and if I am, I shall celebrate the release of a better theory.
Second, I mentioned before you began participation in this discussion the possibility of a US government order or a security mandate moving the market in the US - usually I hope not to have to remind someone of what I've said, but there it is. Clearly you didn't see it. Although you may note, this is a whole world we live in, not a USA. And the E at the beginning of ETSI denotes Europe. And since ETSI is predominant at least in the GSM world, that is significant.
Third, I pointed out that I see the MNOs wanting to participate in the flow of value through their pipes: from ticketing, transactions, the distribution of applications etc. And I provided an example of one MNO representing the view that what they fear is to be turned into a bitpipe. Essentially, what they seem to be doing with NFC and with their electronic wallets appears to me to be attempting to pursue this model. They want to toll the flow of value through the information highway.
Fourth, the TCG model conceals from the MNOs exactly the value they wish to tax. It permits them to make money from the flow of bits, but not from the type of bits that use their networks.
Fifth, it appears to me that amongst the US MNOs, Sprint may be willing to break rank. It is certainly positioned to do so, seems to be supportive of the NFC architecture, seems to be working with Google's wallet, seems to be permitting Samsung's NFC-enabled phones with NCI interface onto its network.
Sixth, I haven't searched for similar opportunities amongst MNOs outside the US, but there may be other ones willing to do something similar to Sprint (if indeed I'm right about Sprint).
Seventh, the TCG mobile structure seems to permit MNOs to participate in the distribution of applets. On the other hand, the MNOs seem to want to exclude and/or control other authorities from doing exactly this. So to the extent ETSI permits the distribution of trusted applications, I expect them to try to modify the architecture so as to subsume it. I don't know how they will do so, but having seen them operate for a while, I think they will try.
Eighth, I have not said a common secure architectures will not be deployed. Just that it is being tilted by ETSI in favour of MNO control. And this in turn will mean they exert considerable power over pricing. Perhaps they will let Wave in the door. But I expect they will demand a deal which isn't to Wave's liking so much.
Phew. That's all she wrote.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
