Having ploughed through many (but not all) of the 659 pages (excluding annexes) published by Ofcom today on the pay TV market, I am left with one over-riding thought: the watchdog is desperately trying to be nice to BSkyB (to the point which some may find a bit creepy).
Almost every other sentence contains a sub-clause to the effect of "we could have been much more beastly to Sky than this" (so, for example, it considered breaking up Sky, and hasn't done so, and it contemplated forcing Sky to wholesale sport even cheaper, but decided against, and so on).
Ofcom is trying to create the impression that it is intervening in Sky's commercial freedoms to the absolute minimum necessary to correct what it perceives as the satellite broadcaster's unfair competitive advantages.
Now, I am unclear whether it is adopting this forelock-tugging tone to reinforce its legal case when Sky's appeal comes to court, or whether it thinks that the weight of public and political opinion is pro Sky and anti regulator, or whether it's just frightened of big burly Sky.
Is Ofcom being disingenuous?
BT, the acknowledged supreme master of gaming the regulatory system, implies not - in that its statement today whinges about how Ofcom could and should have cracked down harder on Sky.
Which, predictably, is not how Sky sees it. Sky is wholly unimpressed by Ofcom's analysis and rulings, irrespective of the watchdog's conciliatory tone.
Sky's line is that Ofcom's unwarranted interference will mean less money for British sport and less innovation in television.
Unsurprisingly, the Premier League reinforces Sky's complaint - it fears that the obligation on Sky to sell live sport to rivals (at a price that guarantees a profit, mind you) will reduce competitive tension next time there's an auction of TV rights.
The stock market certainly doesn't perceive that the value of Sky's sports rights has diminished in any significant way: its share price has risen 3% today.
After all the posturing and the millions spent on legal fees and lobbying by all the affected media businesses, could this be much ado about not very much?
BT and Virgin will benefit from the ability to buy Sky Sports 1 and 2 at a price that delivers them a margin.
The millions who watch Freeview may be pleased that they may soon be able to watch the big games live without having to take out a Sky subscription.
And it's conceivable that a new generation of movie-on-demand services will become available via broadband sooner than would otherwise have been the case.
But is it remotely likely that Sky - which has twice as many paying subscribers as all its competitors combined - will lose its position at the top of the Pay TV premier league?
Those of us who've watched the movie of regulator versus dominating business many times over many years, know the script by heart: regulator rules; company screams blue murder about risk-taking and entrepreneurialism being trampled by wealth-destroying bureaucrats and it hires the most expensive lawyers to challenge the ruling; months or years later the definitive verdict arrives; in the meantime, the resourceful company has found a new way to reinforce its leadership.
Which is not to say that the work of regulators like Ofcom is fatuous. But simply to point out that companies such as Sky are more robust than they imply on days like today.