Dr. Matt Yardley:

The fundamental principle on a project of this kind, which comes down from European Commission state aid rules, is based on reusing infrastructure, minimising duplication of assets to be cost-efficient, and minimising distortion in the market as far as possible. I would not characterise what is occurring as Eir being handed the money, in that it is perfectly possible for the bidder to use other infrastructure it thought could be used to meet its purpose and honour all its service level agreements under the contract. It is down to the bidder to choose. When the bidder put the final bid in, it had to have absolute confidence that the infrastructure could be used for the purpose of deploying fibre. At the time, I do not believe it was in a position to say that in respect of the ESB, but that could change. It is perfectly possible through this process for the bidder to engage with other providers of infrastructure if deployment is more cost-effective or if it has more confidence about delivery, timescales or whatever. There is nothing at this stage that prohibits it from happening.

On the comment about aerial versus underground, duct infrastructure is generally not maintained that much unless it needs to be. Typically, duct infrastructure tends to get maintained in more urban environments if it is dug up when there is some property development or such like. It generally does not get touched unless it needs to be but I accept the point that, in Ireland, particularly the west, where inclement weather could affect infrastructure, it will need to be upgraded over time by Eir, and it will recover the cost of doing that through the charges it imposes. On the policy objective, I have referred to what is going to Eir but NBI is delivering through its retail partners services to end users. Ultimately, therefore, the end user will benefit. If there are better ways of delivering in certain areas, the bidder is more than open to examining those options.