The Premiership was the case in point, but the Cup Final gave me my ammunition: the BBC/Sky choice was just that – a choice, as both were doing their best to win over viewers to the same spectacle simultaneously.

Since Sky’s rights over the Premiership were broken up and Setanta “won” one of the packages of games, we don’t have any more choice than we did previously. I can’t choose whether to enjoy a match on Sky or switch to its rival, as they never show the same games. Instead I have to subscribe to both packages – at considerable cost – or miss out on some games completely.

Far from increasing the choice to consumers it’s just: a) made things more awkward; b) made things more expensive; and c) forced us to turn to an inferior product for some games. Have you seen the quality of Setanta’s coverage?

There’s no direct parallel in the world of IT, as most software doesn’t involve subscriptions, but you can draw a comparison with the Microsoft antitrust cases. Forced to remove certain bundled applications from Windows, we were assured that people would then have greater choice, and we’d flock to those superior alternatives in our droves… what’s that? You quite like having everything on a plate? Oh.

If Google’s rise continues and we all end up organising our lives online, with calendars, email, office apps and more, all in one place, is that really such a terrible prospect? I have difficulty keeping track of even a small handful of the logins I use online, if someone told me I had to split that up even more and made out it was in my own interests I’d probably cry.

The simple fact is that, regardless of what the few may argue, in a lot of cases Joe Public likes a monopoly. It gives everything in one place, from one source and (PC Pro readers aside, before the emails start piling in) that suits the needs of the majority of people. When that product is also undoubtedly the best – as in Sky’s case – I’ll take the monopoly over the alternative any day.