> I don't see the point of competition for competition's sake. If the BBC do it efficiently and well, what is the problem?
Ah, hardly a "market forces" perspective ...
In the specific example I was referring to, there were a bunch of relatively small businesses in the educational publishing market - revision guides for GCSEs, A Levels, things like that. The internet came along and they had to learn how to cope with that, which most did. Then the BBC decided to publish educational content on the internet for free, which of course those small publishers simply could not compete with. This meant that they had to close down and make people redundant. I would guess 99% of those redundant people paid BBC license fees so that the BBC could afford to put them out of business. And who benefited from this upheaval? Mainly, the kids of middle class parents who had computers and internet connections, who previously spent a few quid on revision books and now got it free from the BBC ...
That's a very specific example. I would guess there are many similar stories where small businesses find it very hard to compete against a massive, publicly funded behemoth, and you find that the only competitors that actually can compete are massive, privately owned behemoths like the Murdoch empire.
These reasons, as well as the BBC's claimed unbias but actual bias, are among the reasons why a future Tory government may have it in for the BBC. I think the BBC does need to change a little. It is brilliant, but not perfect and not above reproach.