Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

That is the central point of my 15 minutes: the fundamental difference between the Government's approach to the development of this broadband infrastructure and that set out by the Senator, which I understand but with which I cannot agree. We have a liberalised telecommunications market and regardless of whether one agrees with that policy, it has been set in train for ten to 15 years. Other countries that have succeeded in developing broadband infrastructure quickly have done so through competition. Broadband has tended to be delivered more quickly where there has been competition between different platform providers, between a cable company and a fixed line company or mobile companies which are now coming in. We have seen that in Ireland. Our failure to develop the infrastructure was due to a lack of investment and competition between the main companies. That is why we lagged behind, especially in the early part of this decade. The failure to invest, particularly by the fixed line and cable companies, from 2002 to 2004 was a fatal error on the part of those companies and did real damage to the State in terms of the infrastructure we want.

All the evidence shows that the competitive environment now is better than it was then. The ownership of those companies and the nature of the market and the technology have changed. There is a genuine choice for the customer between a wireless, fixed line, satellite or cable operator. The direction the Senator is looking for us to take, to dismantle that liberalised market and bring it back into centralised State control to deliver a single technological solution, or what the Minister considers to be the best technological solution, will not necessarily give the best return to the public.

Another fundamental development in the Bill is setting out the targets we would achieve. We must be careful when talking about targets, although not in the level of ambition we might wish to have. My general ambition is that we have to have a supply of broadband which is ahead of demand. I do not want to see a restriction in availability of broadband or speeds restricting existing demand. We should aim for faster and ubiquitous broadband availability. However I would be careful about some of the targets Senator Ross sets in such a fast-changing area.

To give an example of how one must sometimes be careful around the statistics in this area, I will pick up one of the threads of the Bill. The definition of the broadband penetration rate is set out as the number of subscribers per 100,000 members of the population, the common statistical analysis used in the OECD and EU reports within which we are compared internationally. I will give some background information on how one must be careful with the reality behind statistics. We have a population of 4.339 million and the latest figures for the end of quarter two of 2008 show we had 1.054 million subscribers. On that basis there is a subscriber rate of roughly 24.3 per 100. I apologise for going into these figures but it is important to explain the reality behind some of these statistics and the care that must be taken with them. We have 1.5 million houses and 300,000 business premises. If we put broadband into every house and business tomorrow, we would have a subscription rate of 41 per 100. This Bill sets a target of 60 per 100. Sometimes one must be slightly careful with how one uses targets and about what real value one is measuring.

If at that point, every single house had broadband, it would be difficult to go beyond that and achieve the target of 60%. It does not even give one something that is an accurate reflection of where one might want to go. We must be very careful with definitions in this area. We must recognise certain characteristics such as the larger household size in this country and the failure to include mobile broadband in certain statistical analyses. We must be very careful with our use of figures. While I agree with the overall intent of the Independent Senators, that is, to provide faster and more ubiquitous access, the measurement of that is something about which we must be both consistent and careful.

A further concern regarding the Bill, which I hope will be viewed as constructive criticism, is that it would breach EU State aid rules. Irrespective of whether we like it, these are the rules and regulations that govern how the State can interfere in markets. It is clear in the decisions that have been made across the European Union, in a number of different countries, that such a provision, where the State effectively takes over the role of determining how the market operates, would breach the State aid rules and would not be possible, on a legal basis. That is not the deal clincher but it is a reality which must be taken into account when considering any legislation.

The explanatory memorandum in the Bill makes reference to Korea and Denmark and it is useful and appropriate for us to compare ourselves with other jurisdictions. I went to Korea this year to participate in the forum on the future of the Internet, an OECD event which takes place every ten years. Korea has a very extensive network of 100 Mb broadband connectivity, through a fibre optic and cable network into people's homes. It is much easier to do that in Korea than in Ireland. I have never seen a city like Seoul in terms of its apartment density — the whole city would fit into a suburb of Dublin, effectively. Wires hung outside from one window to the next, giving people broadband connectivity.

While it may be true to say that in Korea there is 100 Mb broadband connectivity to every home, it does not necessarily mean they have the applications or the benefits from that. Nor does it mean they have the economic strivers from it. These are some of the reasons we would be investing and we will invest in the development of our broadband future.