Over the past two weeks I have been asked by various people in the trade what, if I'm so clever, magic formula would I come up with that would make Sky viable for public houses.
And as the discontent amongst Sky's new charges rumble on, I've been giving this question more and more thought.
After all, as the pro-Sky commentators are eager to point out, they need to make a profit and that somewhere along the line they have to reap back the cost of their investment in developing probably the best television package you can buy.
I don't disagree. We're all in business to make money, and I'll come back to that point in a moment. First, though, I'll let you in on a guilty secret: I love Sky.
In my home I won't consider any other service. I've looked at Freeview, Virgin, FreeSat and I've tried watching telly on BBC's clever but everso-slightly-pixelated-and-therefore-annoying iPlayer service.
And then I switch my Sky box back on and watch television they way I like to watch television.
Their Plus service is brilliant for somebody who works the hours that I do, the breadth of fiction that is available pretty much covers everything that is desired by the members of my household, the High Definition service is the envy of their competitors and - should I ever be able to afford the necessary equipment - I can choose to watch movies and sports (and, presumably, future television programmes) in another dimension.
At this time of year I even discover strange creatures in my house that I never see but that always manage to leave the television switched to one of the myriad children's channels.
When you consider what you can get from Sky domestically, it is brilliant. But, because the domestic market is getting more and more competitive, Sky are open to giving me offers to ensure I take on different channels in their package, should I want them.
Unfortunately, the market isn't so open in the commercial side of the broadcasting industry and therefore Sky are less inclined to do deals or be flexible.
Consequently, when they've come to review their pricing we have all seen a dramatic hike in our contracted prices. Despite the assurances from Sky that 'thousands of commercial subscribers have seen their prices go down', I have yet to speak to a licensee with Sky who has seen a reduction in their bill.
Instead, Sky have glossed over the price rises by ensuring we all get offered free High Definition and 3D services as part of our package. The problem here is that most ordinary pubs don't have 3D equipment, and in the current market would struggle to afford them.
And High Definition is largely irrelevant in most pubs. After a few pints, most of the punters are watching the match in DoubleVision anyway.
Indeed, I recently spoke to my customers about the impending departure of Sky from the pub and the HD and 3D services that I could have if I stuck with it. They didn't care about such ancillary bolt-ons: all they want to be able to do is watch football in the pub with their mates.
And this is the thing that Sky appears to have failed to recognise. 3D and HD are fantastic and I yearn for them in my living room. I scour the pages of the Stuff and T3 magazines every month - as I approach middleagedom these have become my modern day equivalent of the magazines I used to get excited by as a teenager.
I drool over big LED televisions and Blu-Ray players and I get all gooey over Surround Sound systems that will shake the tiles off the roof of my building. I want to become so immersed in a film that Jennifer Aniston will actually become touchable and I want to think that the car heading towards me really is going to run me over and I want my kids to shriek with laughter as Shrek sits on them.
But in the pub we just want to watch some sport, in a good atmosphere, with a couple of drinks. There will always be environments where such services as three dimensional Golf and high definition beach volley will be demanded, but in the majority of public houses - and hotels - the customers don't really care. They think it's a nice-to-have, but if it makes the difference between their pub having and not having it, they'd rather their pub didn't have it and was able to continue to serve them beer for many years to come instead.
And here we are back at profitability: of course Sky needs to get a return on their investment, but so do we. As Kate Nicholls of the ALMR has recently pointed out, Sky are looking at the commercial subscribers to foot the bill for producing the technology the domestic subscribers want.
Meanwhile, as the vast majority of Sky's commercial customers are struggling to make a profit, or even justify the expense of Sky in their business, the broadcaster themselves have announced pre-tax profits of almost £1bn.
So what is the magic answer? I don't have it, I admit. But if Sky were to look at being as flexible with their commercial customers as they are the domestic, that would be a start.
The only channel that has ever brought any business in to my pub is Sky Sports 1. The other channels are therefore redundant to my needs and are an expense I can't afford; if, however, BSKYB were to offer a package whereby I could subscribe to just that one channel, I would be more than willing to consider maintaining a relationship with them.
I'm sure other small-, mid- and even large-sized pubs would subscribe to a similarly flexible package.
Unfortunately, though, like Theresa May's plans to introduce a blanket fee on all licensed premises selling alcohol after midnight because a handful can't keep their house in order, Sky are making all their commercial subscribers pay for the service that only a handful of them actually want.