However, RE: "You also wonder why, if Ofcom did not think BSkyB wasn't fit and proper to run a media company, it didn't say so from the start?"
I don't think Ofcom's query was (or is) whether BskyB is fit and proper to run a media company, more whether the Murdochs were fit and proper to own 100% of a media company. Remember, at the moment, they own 39% of Sky. Ofcom know this, and they know that in theory, the other shareholders can act to prevent the Murdochs taking too much control.
This is, however, an interesting article. I find it interesting you pointed out that the perception was (and is) that the Murdochs own Sky, while not actually owning it.
I think this is related to something the Murdochs do quite well. They are good at appearing to have more than they do. Think about it. Their news papers sell to probably (at most) 10% of the country. Sky despite having a lot of subscribers to it's satellite platform, actually doesn't get a lot of viewers for any of it's channels. I'd even go so far as to say that the average episode of Coronation Street is watched by probably as many (if not more) people as those that read or watch Murdoch media outlets, yet no one questions how much power the staff behind Coronation Street has over the general population
But, the Murdochs appear to have power. Why? I suspect it's a combination of things.
1) They seem to be extraordinarily good at becoming friends with the people who are in the right places (even if those people are not in power, they are often advisors to someone who is).
2) They are perceived by people to have a lot of power. This has, in the past, made Politicians scared of offending them. This is what gives them that power.