Last Friday was probably a fairly uneventful one for most people, but for Britain's army of small newsagents, it was actually fairly significant.
That's because Friday marked the end of a month-long consultation process, which was being undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) into its proposals to change the way newspapers and magazines are distributed to retailers throughout the country.
Depending on the representations it received, the OFT will very soon give its final verdict on the issue - and that could sound the death knell for thousands of newsagents.
Why so? Well, the OFT doesn't think the current arrangement for the distribution of newspapers and magazines is a good one, because it is anti-competitive.
The current system is based on nominated wholesalers being given sole rights over a particular geographical area, which the newspaper and magazine industry says is the most efficient and economic way of getting the country's 14 million daily newspapers to the people who buy them each day.
The OFT doesn't agree, at least in the case of magazines, where it thinks retailers should be free to get a better deal from whichever wholesaler they can. Newspapers are a special case and can carry on as before, says OFT.
By taking this position, the OFT has put itself on a collision course with the whole of the newspaper and magazine industry, as represented by the Newspaper Publishers' Association, the Periodical Publishers' Association and the Association of Newspaper and Magazine Wholesalers.
They say that you can't tear up the current distribution arrangement, because delivery of newspapers and magazines both share the same overnight delivery vehicle, which makes for huge cost savings.
If you try and divide the two, it carries the same dangers as separating Siamese twins, says the industry.
So what might happen if the OFT goes ahead?
We may get some idea from the example in the US, which did the same thing a decade ago - it produced competition all right, as wholesalers slugged it out to see who could offer the best deal.
Trouble is, the losers - and that was most of the 180 wholesalers that existed in 1995 - went out of business, as the big retailers took control.
That was not all. The number of retailers also fell, from 180,000 to 132,000 between 1996 and 2001, and the number of magazine titles also fell dramatically.
Do we really want to risk that happening over here?
At the moment we have a system which works perfectly well for everyone concerned, from the industry right through to the consumer.
It is more than just efficient and economic - the industry calls the daily distribution of newspapers and magazines its "nightly miracle". So why the perceived need to change?
The answer, predictably, stems from the government, who set this particular train in motion when they amended the UK's legislation on competition.
Why, instead of targeting something which really does need urgent reform - the bloated and inefficient NHS or the welfare state - these people always seem to want to interfere where there is absolutely no need to?
They should take note of the old saying: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I guess that's too much to hope for.