So here we are with a national online retailing infra-structure, paid for by the lottery-using British public, which is prevented BY LAW from being used for any other services - presumably which might make Camelot more money. The extra profit Camelot might have made could have increased funding for good causes, for example (perhaps a condition for allowing them to use the terminals for additional trade). The services themselves, whatever they might have been, would also be cheaper than having to pay for a separately installed infra-structure operated by a competitor running alongside the existing Camelot terminals - thereby saving the public some expense.
This is a typical lack of joined up thinking in the name of 'fairness'.
I read a very interesting article recently about what we mean by 'fairness'. It seems there are two very opposite schools of political thought defining 'fairness' - and intriguingly they both sound reasonable. The first, the 'socialist argument', says that a fairness is where everyone can achieve the same outcome. In sporting terms, its like the golf handicap or paraplegic games. The 'playing field' is levelled for everyone's individual ability so that there's always the best possible chance of a photo-finish between all competitors. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it. The 'pragmatist argument' (I resisted using the label 'capitalist' since this is more widely applicable than just economically, but capitalism is a form of pragmatism with greed sprinkled over it), is that all factors affecting a competition (not just sport, but business, fighting, natural evolution etc) should be equal for all competitors, and 'let the best man win'. Again, totally fair for everyone who decides to compete.
As a society I believe the strong should look after the weak, not be reduced to the same level. This diminishes the competitiveness of the whole, and although the weak then experience the same rewards as the strong, no-one moves forward and we decline in global competition.
Nature itself is 100% pragmatic. There is absolutely no place in evolution for sentiment and 'social fairness'. This doesn't mean that the weaker in society can't be protected and lead fulfilled lives. But it does mean that everything has to be earned and the strongest given every opportunity to push the boundaries of their domain.... BUT there are ethical limits where competitive strength can run rampant throughout an environment if constraints aren't reasonably applied.
So returning to the Camelot restriction, preventing the strongest from offering services is excessive constraint until society has had a chance to consider the benefits of those services. If they offend elements of society in some way (sexual services perhaps, or enabling children to gamble perhaps), there should be arbiters selected by us to decide which reduce individual freedoms, and which enhance them. Smoking, for example, ultimately, and controversially I have no doubt, is actually a reduction of individual freedom in that nicotine controls the addiction, not the individual, and society (including families) end up paying for the health consequences. We should therefore be prevented from poisoning ourselves.
Let market forces determine what we can and can't buy (so long as it's healthy), and don't confuse fairness with social engineering.