That is not what I was implying, however in the long term Sky is planning to rip people off.
What I am trying to say is that because Sky has a virtual monopoly on selling satellite TV, they should be regulated under the competition commission because of being a monopoly.
However they aren't regulated, this enables them to bundle satellite TV with other products eg broadband/phone, this makes them much cheaper than if people were buying the products separately. So what they are doing is creating them an unfair advantage in the broadband/phone market by using their monopoly in another market (satellite TV).
This is good for the consumer in the short term but can be very bad in the long term.
Another thing that I can't believe is the price people pay to subscribe to Sky and they have to suffer advertising breaks as well! They are raking it in both ways which in my eyes makes them very expensive. Numerous other channels fund from just the advertising so Sky's subscription is an additional (large!) bonus, this again is an abuse of their monopolistic position as they are also invading the advertising market by cross-marketing.
Just imagine the position of strength this would put Sky in if they managed to wipe out their competitors in the non-core function eg TalkTalk (loss of broadband/tv customers) or ITV (loss of advertising revenue).
I also don't believe that Sky should be able to monopolise on programs that are in the national interest eg sports, there should never be an exclusive arrangement whereby those sort of things (that they don't produce) should be exclusive to satellite (ie unavailable on terrestrial).
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates