Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

We should not be having this debate at all. We have had a number of debates on broadband, some of which have been sparked by worthwhile motions proposed by Senator Ross which should have been supported by the House. We are talking about a technology that is at least a decade old, and a national broadband strategy that even the Minister recognises will not address the needs of customers in modern Ireland. We are so far behind it is hard to believe. It is very frustrating to be talking about a national broadband scheme and whether it will be delivered on time and cost friendly, when we know the service is very limited and does not meet the needs of the population, especially the needs of the business and tourism sectors. I gave the example today provided by Irish Rural Link about tourism projects that cannot reach their potential due to the unavailability of broadband.

We have been forced into having this debate because vast swathes of the country still have no access to broadband. There have been claims that broadband is as important as education, roads and so on. I have already said broadband today is like running water or electricity. People and businesses need it, and it needs to be provided.

I genuinely feel the current Minister is committed to broadband and I listened with interest when he announced the national broadband scheme. He was speaking on either RTE or Newstalk, and he was being pushed into answering whether it would definitely be delivered by the end of 2009. He hung his colours to the mast and stated it definitely would be in place by then. The interviewer pushed him to say what he would do if it was not delivered and he repeated that it would definitely be delivered. Thank God he did not say he would do something drastic if that did not materialise because since then the date has slipped twice.

There is a very sizable digital divide. Senator O'Toole referred to the report I carried out for the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs called Awakening the West: Overcoming Social and Economic Inequality. The report shows the digital divide between east and west. Although three out of ten customers have access to broadband, the level is still far below where we need to be in terms of Dublin. According to the recent Forfás report, in the Border region of the west the rate of broadband connectivity is only 12%. In significant swathes of the west there is no broadband connectivity and most of the west has a level of connectivity between 10% and 17%. In fact, 17% is the average in the west. This has resulted in significant limitations. Where there are difficulties in terms of access to the west because of lack of infrastructure, broadband has the potential not of eradicating those difficulties, because those issues need to be addressed, but of easing them. It is possible for a business to communicate with another business or do the work over the Internet which does not require physical infrastructure. This should be provided and it should be done quickly.

I refer to some specifics. Everyone knows the MANs, metropolitan area networks, scheme proved to be a waste of money to a certain degree. Under phase 1 some €18 million was spent in five towns which have no customers whatsoever. One such town is in my parish of Gaoth Dobhair. Let us consider County Donegal. Some €10 million was spent on the metropolitan area networks in Carndonagh, Ballybofey, Buncrana, Ballyshannon, Bundoran and Gaoth Dobhair. The majority of those towns have no customers because the cost of connecting to the network is excessive. However, the Eirnet group facilitated a co-operation between Donegal County Council and Derry City Council to fund broadband connectivity. This was overseen by the European Union and involved North West Electronics Wireless Networks. Since then, there has been a significant increase in the number of people who can access broadband. However, North West Electronics maintains that with an additional €0.5 million it could connect everyone in the county to the network, including businesses and people in their own homes. It further maintains it could do so at a faster speed and with a better service than that provided by the national broadband strategy. I am not privy to the figures in terms of the contract that has been signed by 3 Ireland. However, we should consider value for money. A large part of County Donegal comes under the national broadband strategy. We should consider whether it represents value for money to award the contract to that firm, or whether better value for money and greater speeds are available elsewhere.

One reason this is the wrong debate is that broadband is not only about availability. The cost and affordability of broadband is also in question. My research has highlighted the problems faced by business.

Let us consider broadband speeds in Ireland at present. The average speed is approximately 2 megabytes. Some 19% of products in Ireland have a speed of 2 megabytes compared to 47% of products in Britain and 55% of products in France with greater speeds. The fastest speed here is approximately 6 megabytes, but the cost of that service is four or five times the cost in other countries in Europe such as France, Germany and Hungary. For example, an Irish business pays more than €2,000 per year for a 6 megabyte ADSL, asymmetric digital subscriber line, service, while its counterpart in Germany pays €534 for a 16 megabyte service. In France, the annual cost for an 18 megabyte service is €530. Let us remember that in 2000 in Ireland the corresponding cost was for a 6 megabyte service. In Sweden for a 24 megabyte service the cost is slightly less than €1,200 per year.

The Minister of State is aware of these figures, because report after report has shown that we have low speeds, high costs and low availability. The problem is that we are discussing something which should have been done ten years ago. We should have been investing at the height of the Celtic tiger. The Six Counties has 100% coverage many times over and there are proposals as part of its programme for Government for speeds of up to 100 megabytes for businesses, which is greatly in excess of what this State is considering. I appeal to the Minister of State to consider several points. The national broadband strategy has identified areas which are not connected. Leitrim County Council carried out a survey and found areas that the Department claimed were connected which were not in fact connected. This should be revisited and a proper audit should be carried out.

We must examine the possibility of reducing costs for people. We must also move with the times and catch up very quickly. There is no point in discussing next generation networks in ten or 20 years time. We should have next generation pilot projects where possible. For example in my home county of Donegal it would be possible to have pilot next generation network schemes and to introduce speeds of up to 100 megabytes per second in towns. That would give us a cutting edge not only in Ireland or Europe, but throughout the world. We could attract serious investment if there were a serious carrot to entice multinational companies or other industries into an area with such a network available. There is no point in attempting to do so with old technology and when other countries are moving in a certain direction in terms of next generation networks. We must begin to invest State money and pilot schemes.

A significant problem and one of the reasons we are discussing this matter now is the privatisation of Eircom. It should be acknowledged by the Government that this was a wrong strategy. The main Opposition party argues for selling off more State agencies. However, that is a wrong strategy and Eircom is an example of why that view is completely and utterly flawed. Ministers and taoisigh are down on bended knee begging Eircom to provide services which it will not and cannot afford. We must consider the re-nationalisation of Eircom in order that Broadband, an essential service for every community and business, is and can be provided by direct State intervention.