It's the BBC against the world (wide web)

The BBC has never been universally popular - and it's not just the tunnel-vision approach to programming which angers licence-fee payers ('what do you mean you want to watch something which doesn't involve reality TV, DIY or the emergency services?').

One of the more galling things for many online businesses is the self-congratulatory tone of the BBC every time its online services scoop another gong. Each time it happens millions of website users are informed as to just how good the service is. And while there's nothing wrong with blowing your own trumpet, each time the announcements will be met with a uniform response from rivals:

"Yes, but give us that much funding and see how many awards we win."

You have to admit they've got a point. And this isn't about the green-eyed monster. Of course all these competing businesses would like the same level of funding - that goes without saying - but it is also about wanting a level playing field.

Now, the BBC is up before another judging panel - but it's not a nice mantelpiece-friendly trinket which is up for grabs.

In a nutshell: the Beeb is being asked to 'justify itself'.

In more detail: a review ordered by Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, will examine how well the Beeb's online arm has lived up to its remit, if it provides value for money and what commercial impact the organisation has had on the market.

It's that latter point which will strike a chord with competing organisations who have had to scrap for ad-based funding. Obvious comparisons would be with an organisation such as ITV. The commercial channel would no doubt argue that the BBC has an unfair advantage and that the market is skewed as a result.

In defence of the organisation Ashley Highfield, director of BBC New Media and Technology, told silicon.com: "Two million people came onto the net as a result of the BBC. In terms of e-commerce, 65 per cent of traffic from our sites goes onto other sites, so we're actually driving ecommerce."

It's a good point and shows a level of benevolence which may previously have been overlooked. It seems likely that thousands of BBC site visitors may have read reports about the new Harry Potter book for example and then headed to Amazon to buy the book - which is good new for Amazon, but it's not necessarily good news for the rival sites selling banner ads to Amazon.

This isn't a question of quality. The BBC site is outstanding - and should be with the backing it has - but it again raises questions about funding and competition issues which will dog Auntie ad nauseum.

What do you think? Should Auntie be forced to stand on her own two feet and support itself? Is the idea of a state-sponsored broadcaster outdated in the internet age? Should the BBC's new media properties be spun off? Let us know your thoughts by emailing editorial@silicon.com