The BBC: The monopoly it's OK to love?

This week the BBC has been back in the news. Word that its web presence is to be reined in by the government for being anti-competitive certainly set off a series of lively debates among silicon.com readers.

Some took issue with silicon.com's own Will Sturgeon after he spoke out in support of limiting the corporation in his Web Watch column, while others were all in favour of changes to the BBC's website, which they believe has spread itself too far and wide across areas which are not core to its public service remit.

Susannah writes: "At last someone talking sense about the BBC. The BBC should either be a public service broadcaster, funded publicly, or a commercial operator competing with everyone for ad revenues. At the moment it's neither. It's a hybrid stifling the commercial sector and failing to provide a public service."

However, one issue which cropped up time and time again and which we'd love to clear up now is the misunderstanding of what is being addressed. We don't want to start a debate about BBC television programmes, or the Iraq War, the Hutton Report, the Beeb's independence and the fact that it should cover news without government intervention. All these are largely unrelated. All we are talking about are the recommendations that the BBC be forced to withdraw from areas which are typically catered for by a variety of excellent commercial services whose existence is being threatened by the BBC's spread into new markets.

Anonymous writes: "The whole Charter Review and the Graf report aren't about whether the BBC does things well. They're about whether they are fulfilling the remit under which they receive close to £3bn a year from the licence payers.

We also need to question whether the BBC is, in many of its activities, flagrantly flouting Competition Law, hiding behind its immunity from most regulation and its privileged status."

We're not even debating whether the BBC website is excellent. Of course it is - with that much funding it has to be. But there are concerns it is monopolising too many markets and that is a fact which could stifle innovation and prove bad for the UK in the long term.

Richard Bence writes: "The BBC has always had a reputation for high quality but its tentacles are now spreading into areas that do not provide value to licence payers."

Gaming was one area where the BBC was taken to task. Does the corporation really need to offer fantasy football competitions or even computer game reviews, when such offerings are provided by innovative independent services? Similarly some of the Beeb's entertainment coverage was highlighted as being far-removed from the core public service remit.

But many readers argue on principle that the BBC should not be touched - regardless of what it does, lest its tightly guarded independence ever be dented.

Anonymous writes: "This makes my blood boil. I pay my licence fee and I expect the BBC to provide me with the best of everything, whether TV, radio or online."

While there are those who simply love the BBC for its unarguably excellent service.

Stephen Archer writes: "BBCi provides fantastic value for money - I don't resent a penny of my licence fee. The BBC runs without doubt the single best website in the world."

Others go one step further and claim the playing field is already level and that commercial companies are failing themselves rather than being failed by the huge chunk of public funding finding its way into BBC coffers.

Martin Plunkett writes: "Presumably all this really means is that the commercial sector can't compete with what the BBC offers - doesn't this mean the commercial sector should become more competitive not the BBC less?"

So where is the consensus? We want you all to take five seconds and answer our latest poll on this very subject (found on the right of the homepage, here). But please put thoughts of TV programmes, repeats, presenters and news coverage out of your mind and answer honestly with regards to the BBC's online conflict with commercial sites.