More on the role of the BBC post Carter report

I wrote yesterday that one of the question's that will arise following the digital Britain report in the future role of the BBC which unfortunately will always distort the market.

Evening Standard columnist Paul Waugh agrees and as a starting point would like to do away with the BBC news web pages.

there is a case that the BBC licence fee should not be spent on websites or any internet activity at all, that it should be restricted to broadcasting alone. There is a huge grey area about whether you need a TV licence to receive broadcasts via the internet rather than a TV set. But although the Beeb wants to reach as large an audience as possible, its main source of funding is a "TV licence" not an "computer licence".

Peston on our media obsession

on the day that Carter's conclusions are published, one question is why the digital industries are more deserving of ministerial attention than - say - pharmaceuticals, or defence, or motor manufacturing, or food and drink, or civil aviation.

Writes Robert Peston this morning,noting that this may well be the first time that the country has seen a white paper on digital Britain.

But is it for the best as he adds

If you work in those industries, you may think "thank goodness ministers aren't meddling with us".

A distorting Beeb but is that the price we have to pay?

As we all wait in readiness for the Carter report,Philip Stephen thinks that there is a fairly simple answer to the problems in the media

British broadcasting is sliding towards monochromic mediocrity. Counterintuitive as it may sound, the best way to rescue it would be to cut funding for the BBC and share out the proceeds of the licence fee.

Easier said than done but the point is that the BBC does distort the market.

Whether that distortion is the price we pay for a quality media package is the debate that needs to be had