Mr. Marcus Matthews:

That is probably how I ended up becoming involved in this. I just could not believe it when the connection was installed. It was James O'Sullivan's company that did it. I was on ADSL for years and it was dreadful. He asked me how much speed I would like and I asked if I could get the Internet. I wanted it to work and not drop every two minutes and I asked if I could get 1 Mbps. He asked if I wanted 50. I was thinking that it would not work and that it would take weeks to be done, but he came up one afternoon and it was installed in two hours. I have never had to telephone the company about an issue of a technical nature. I carry out web conferences with the high definition video link with up to 40 participants and all the bells and whistles. There can be rain, hail, snow and fog in which one cannot even see the gate, but it does not make a difference.

When I heard about the NBP, I thought it did not make sense. Before long, I was involved in putting my public policy experience and various other skill sets to good use. Our submission provides case studies and figures, particularly in respect of Scotland, which tried the 100% fibre approach and got very good value for money at a cost of €442 million. It now has a top-up which will catch the final 5%. On things being too good to be true, other jurisdictions are bringing it in at this kind of efficiency and with these economies of scale.

On why the proposal was not raised previously, there were numerous consultation engagements on the part of the industry through the years. There are plenty of people who will attest to this and provide evidence and documentation in that regard. Two previous representative bodies also collectively engaged. One could say that it is appearing to the committee at a late stage. I would put that down to a lack of communication, possibly between the Oireachtas and the Department or on the part of the industry. The people in the industry are working very hard to serve their customers and they should not have to shout this loud to get heard. From my perspective in terms of public policy engagement, it is remarkable and worrying that this alternative was not examined as part of the cost-benefit analysis.

The criteria for a cost-benefit analysis and the public spending code require that one looks at one's project and an alternative and prepares a counter-factual that extrapolates what will happen if one does nothing in terms of how broadband access provision would progress. The NBP process did not really look at an alternative. The counter-factual had substantial issues in terms of 300,000 properties having to be removed. Two eminent economists stated that it does not live up to the stress tests. We are where we are. There is a tender process running. We do tenders for a reason, namely, to try to tease out problems and prevent bad decisions being made in the allocation of precious public funds. The process worked in one respect as a very credible proposal has come forward in time to be examined and for the current process to be halted for two or three months during which we can run a national mapping exercise. I am sure all of the regional ISPs would be very happy to provide their mapping data. We were looking at software last week that would probably allow us to do that mapping exercise and instantaneously figure out how many homes are covered for next generation access speeds and how many would need some type of assistance.

On whether it is too good to be true, I am of the opinion that we should put it to the test and stress test it before we make this decision and go forward with the biggest contract in our history. If we can achieve the same result in a shorter timescale for significantly less money, the Government has a fiduciary duty to examine that in great detail and robustly determine what is the best course of action.