This is a good question, as if they are paying Neil Midgley for his latest missive on how the BBC making an iPhone application for its content is a waste of his license fee, then I suggest they hire someone else. I'm just not sure his argument makes any sense.

When the next election is won there is probably two certainties: cuts of one form or another and some sort of review of the BBC once the economics is in order. It's been caught up in the 'how our tax is wasted' fiasco and every one and his brother who would like the BBC to only ever produce safe and non-commercial TV is piling in. To be fair, something probably does need doing, as the BBC does compete in the UK broadcasting space but has a guaranteed revenue. The danger is we'll destroy it in the process. The axes seem to be out and I can't help but think some people will look over their shoulder at the once great forest and question their actions once it's too late.

Midgley's missive hits upon one area that people often complain about: the BBC's expansion beyond the TV set into web content and alternative delivery mechanisms. The irony about Midgley's piece is he's fine with iPlayer. That was a good thing. That wasn't a waste of his licence fee. I remember all the moaning about money being spent on iPlayer when it was new. My argument is it's not possible to back the creation of iPlayer and then go on to say 'that is okay' but creating content delivery mechanisms for mobile phones is a waste of the license fee to the extent the BBC shouldn't be doing it. The reason being they are part of the same strategy, ultimately more content will be watched, listened to or read on mobiles just as more content is being consumed over the Internet to the PC and console devices. After all, it's not just about the iPhone, they've also committed to Blackberry and Adroid versions, so it's also about the iPad and Android tablets, etc. If iPlayer is fine, does that mean developments to integrate iPlayer with Virgin Media or the PlayStation 3 are okay? If they are okay then what makes mobile content an exception?

It makes no sense. There is no borderline that tips things over to the nonsensical. Either the BBC has a remit to get its content onto other platforms, whatever that content maybe, as the priority of TV wanes or they don't? Amazingly, in the typical fashion associated with The Telegraph and The Independent, a number of people reply who seem to have mastered the ability to comment on articles from the past, as they are certainly posting from a different century. If the BBC sat on its laurels and only ever delivered content to TV and never looked at other options one of two things would have happened: erosion due to competitors doing it (though the issue of guaranteed revenue comes in) or we've not have Sky and ITV player because it took a 'tax' funded organisation to make the move? Take your pick.

The thing I find amazing about the issue of the BBC casting out its content to the Internet and edge of network devices? The fact, as a public organisation, it does it so bloody well.