What should happen to the BBC's internet services? The closing date for submissions to the government's inquiry (run by Philip Graf) was earlier this week - and it looks as though he will have to contend with an unusual argument about a public service: the BBC's online services are simply too good and should be cut down to size.
Chris Goodall, of the research firm Enders Analysis, said in the Financial Times this week: "The corporation should acknowledge the possibility that its activities are so overwhelming that the aspirations of other companies are being thwarted. Perhaps the review should conclude that BBC services are simply too good and too well funded for the health of the UK's internet sector."
I had better take this slowly as I am not used to things being dismantled because they are too good. Usually, the problem is that we have too many organisations performing below average. What a wonderful place Britain would be if the privately run health or education sectors were able to complain bitterly that state education and health providers were too good.
The BBC's competitors are arguing that its website - which costs nearly £100m (this works out at just under 1p a day for every working person) is so comprehensive that it is depriving them of revenues they would get if the BBC website did not exist. Indeed, the future scale of the corporation's online service could be decided by how much it may or may not take away from the private sector in revenues.
This is the wrong premise. The internet model for the BBC is no different to what has proved so successful for television: straight competition between a licence fee system and an advertising one. It has proved highly successful for maintaining standards while also producing mutual benefits from fierce competition. When the TV advertising revenue cycle is locked into a downward trend, as it has been recently, TV companies cry foul - but when it is in an upswing and becomes a licence for them to print money, they keep quiet.
The internet is no different. It has been slow to generate money from advertising simply because of unfamiliarity with a new medium. Remember, the world wide web is still less than 10 years old as a mass phenomenon. But that is starting to change - and the web will become a major revenue earner in proportion to the users it attracts.
As a Guardian employee, I may wish the BBC's site was closed as it would make it easier for our excellent site to make money. But as a consumer, I am fortunate to have the choice, and have no doubt that newspaper sites will earn handsome incomes once they find the right formula. The suggestion that it should be scaled down to make it easier for others would be regarded as barmy if it were not happening before our eyes.
This is not to say the BBC's website could not be more efficient. But to cut it back because it is what it is - a world centre of excellence providing everything from news to education on one site - is something that could only happen in a country obsessed with ownership rather than success.
