In reply to digby:
> If both are free access to the end user it makes no difference.
It makes a difference to the end user in that one has advertising content on there, the other doesn't.
>Why should 'free enterprise' be sacred?
I don't think free enterprise is sacred, but in areas of non-essential public provision, like a climbing website for example, I think fair competition is the way to go. I think the more commercial areas the BBC enters into, with its massive resources, the worse it is for those genuinely trying to compete on merit in those areas.
> If UKC is better than BBCUKC then it will do better, and if it's not then why should it survive anymore than if it were in competition with another site.
Because the BBC isn't any other site. It's publicly funded. Would it be fair that some geezers with laptops and a server (sorry UKC folks, I know it's more complicated than that really) should compete with a website that has the weight, technological expertise, cross-platform advertising capabilities, of the publicly funded BBC, in the area of climbing news? Is there a public interest in the BBC getting involved in climbing? If the BBC used its resources to get into......shoe mending for example, set up a shop next door to every Timpsons on the high street, paid great wages to attract the finest cobblers, and provided the services for free, as long as you, or someone in your household, paid their tv licence......would that be fair to cobblers? It's providing a great public service, and it's paid for by 'crowd sourcing', the people love it and prefer it to Timpsons, after all it's high quality and free at the point of use, but is it right for the BBC to be doing that?
By using that ridiculous example I'm just trying to make the point that everything the BBC does, and does well, isn't necessarily fair in the open market. Just because it can provide high quality services in lots of areas, it doesn't mean that it should.
> Maybe a crowd funded one. Would you ban those too?
Not sure I advocated banning anything, but don't let that dry the froth at the corners of your mouth.
> I pay for the BBC (partly!) and I'm very happy with what I get. I don't 'subsidise' the recipe site (or the rest of the BBC). I crowd fund it.
Great choice of words. Crowd funding is the best way for people to directly fund the things they specifically and directly want to support. You choose the project, put your money that way, job done. That's not how the BBC licence fee works. You pay it and it goes wherever the BBC decides to put it. That's the only way it can work (for the moment at least) and is totally fair enough, but that doesn't mean how the BBC spends it is always right, and can't be up for debate. Much like the NHS. We all pay in to the pot and it gets spent in all sorts of ways, some of which we may agree with, some of which we may disagree with. In those cases it's fair to make the point that you disagree with the way the NHS spends its money. That doesn't mean trying to ban the NHS.