> Sky certainly should not be allowed to be a pay TV platform (in many countries) AND ALSO have control of Pay TV channels. They must divest Sky1, Sky Sports and Sky News etc, or be a content provider and divest of the Satellite Pay TV platforms.
> I think beer should be free, and benefits the population enormously. That doesn't mean its going to happen.
I think you missed the point - no-one is calling for anything to be free, so your comeback isn't comparing apples with apples.
FWIW, I agree that Sky shouldn't be allowed the degree of vertical integration it has - it's got a de-facto monopoly of pay-TV for large swathes of (at least) the UK and (ab)uses that power to force things to it's way. As Mage points out, they control the distribution, the EPG, the STBs, and do their own content/channels - that's one hell of a cliff to climb for any would be competitor.
Basically, Sky can veto any competing content it feels it can get away with keeping off it's system. If the BBC or the group of companies making up ITV owned the Freeview transmission system and actively used that control to make sure their own output had an unfair advantage over anyone else then there's be a outcry.
So yes, I do not think Sky (or anyone else with that much market power) should be allowed such vertical integration - the "carrier" and the "content" should be separate and contract with each other at arms length, with a suitable regulator able to see that no preferential deals are going on.
But on one point you are correct - nothing is going to change. Sky will carry on gouging customers and using it's size to keep it's dominance. And the authorities will do SFA about it.