I welcome the delegation from Irish Rural Link, including Mr. Seamus Boland, CEO; Mr. Seán O'Leary, policy and communications officer, and Mr. Vincent Nally, development officer. The joint committee has invited them to discuss the national broadband scheme. Before we begin, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
National Broadband Scheme: Discussion with Irish Rural Link.
Mr. Seamus Boland
I thank the Chairman and speak on behalf of Irish Rural Link when I say we are grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak on this subject. We hope to provide information and express concerns. We will go through the presentation and supply any follow-up material the committee may require. We will also answer any questions asked.
As members can read about Irish Rural Link on the Internet, I will not go through that information in great detail. The organisation consists of over 300 community groups and there are members in every county. We are well established in that sense. Members can see a picture postcard that we launched at our conference in Ballyhoura, near Charleville, County Cork; it relates to the broadband campaign. We asked people in rural areas who consider they do not have access to broadband to put their contact details on the postcard and send it. We only printed a few postcards, thinking that would be sufficient, but found that a subsequent print run of 10,000 was necessary. It is a serious issue.
The topic today relates to Government policy in the period 2007 to 2012. We are talking about a world-class telecommunications sector that is critical to our continued economic and social prosperity. We are committed to moving Ireland to the forefront of knowledge-based economies and the provision of open-access broadband. We aim to help build Ireland's smart economy; a digital services export economy that will require a high speed broadband network. We will need a renewable electricity supply and our own ingenuity to succeed. Building Ireland's smart economy means having broadband as a key enabling infrastructure for knowledge intensive services. We are starting with Government policy, not our own suggestions. We are happy with these principles and would measure any programme, especially the national broadband scheme, against them.
According to the Central Statistics Office, some 40% of the population live in rural areas. The rate of job growth is higher in areas with superior broadband services. The first thing a small business setting up in a rural area will ask about is broadband capacity. There will be trouble if there is not a positive response to such a query.
Another area of our policy is the reduction of emissions in travelling to and from work. People living in rural areas travel long distances and Government policy suggests such behaviour should be reduced. Sustainable communities and local employment should be sought. Broadband is essential to the maintenance of existing services in rural areas, for example, shops and post offices. Farming is becoming more dependent on broadband and Teagasc is organising training to bring farmers into the digital age. Broadband is no longer a luxury but an essential tool.
We disagree somewhat with ComReg's figures. According to ComReg, Ireland is tenth in the world for broadband, but that includes mobile technology and anything one can dream of. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, figures exclude mobile broadband and put us 21st of 30 countries surveyed. We have real concerns about mobile broadband. Ireland comes 28th for average advertised download speeds. We also come 28th for the fastest connection advertised among all surveyed operators, according to figures from 2007. The aforementioned principles suggest Ireland should have a smart economy that is well served by technology but we are well down the league table — even the ComReg table. The World Economic Forum places Ireland 23rd overall but 52nd with regard to government prioritisation of ICT. It places Ireland 34th in terms of vision for the future and 50th for success in ICT promotion. We have a long way to go to reach the standards needed to get us out of the current mess and compete.
We put on the website our own analysis which was fairly conducted. We asked the Government, the Department and anyone who wished to contribute to add to, subtract from and criticise the study as they wished. The current analysis is on the website and shows the distance Ireland is from having an adequate broadband service. We call this the good, the bad and the inadequate. There are concerns relating to planning, tourism and small to medium-sized enterprises.
In terms of technological limitations, mobile broadband is suitable only for customers who fit a certain profile. They do not require a fixed telephone line or high-end broadband services in terms of speed and quality and are not heavy Internet users. Epitiro, a worldwide monitoring agency with offices in County Kerry, argues that, on average, mobile broadband only achieves 64% of the advertised speed. Browsing on a mobile broadband connection is considerably slower than on fixed line services. Mobile technology will satisfy domestic needs reasonably well and, in that sense, we welcomed the national broadband scheme as a big step forward. Irish Rural Link has been clear in meetings with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, that it welcomes the scheme but our main concern is keeping people and jobs in rural Ireland. As good as the national broadband scheme is, it will not encourage job creation by industry and small businesses because contention rates are a real problem.
I do not wish to blind the committee with the issue of contention. This area makes sense: the more people who use broadband the more contention, or space, will be taken and the weaker broadband provision becomes. This is particularly the case with mobile technology. It could happen that a very large conference in a certain area will result in a sudden spike in mobile broadband usage; this will mean the entire area will be affected. Contention is a major problem for mobile technology. Latency is an issue connected with this and relates primarily to time delay. We all know how frustrating a computer delay can be, even if it only amounts to five seconds. Latency can drive one mad if one is trying to send important documents. For a business, it ends up costing money, etc. These issues need to be resolved. Is mobile technology capable of overcoming these issues, especially if a high usage is required? We think not but are willing to be proved wrong in this regard.
It was decided the broadband scheme would be determined on those electoral division areas that did not have coverage in the first place. If one lives, as I do, in an electoral division area which can supposedly receive broadband, then one does not qualify for the national broadband scheme. Two members of this delegation live in areas regarded as covered. In my case, however, when I tested for broadband, it did not even register. Mr. Vincent Nally has the same problem in his area. We estimate conservatively that up to 12,000 houses with no access to broadband coverage will not be able to access this scheme. Again, we would be quite happy to be proved wrong on that.
Planning concerns also emerge with the national broadband scheme. The contract winners, 3, have been forthcoming in the provision of information on planning issues. Up to 390 masts will be required, 160 of which will be new. Questions about these will emerge in more scenic areas of the country. We hope they will be dealt with fairly but the nature of the planning process suggests there will be difficulties.
The presentation contains case studies of the problems with broadband coverage faced by two companies which were highlighted at a recent seminar we held. Both gave their permission to be included in the presentation.
The first company, Mr. Crumb, is based in Finea, County Westmeath, and is a thriving food business. Given the current economic climate, that business is much more sustainable than some others.
The rest are only feeding off the crumbs.
Mr. Seamus Boland
The business employs between 55 and 100 — the discrepancy is due to the seasonal element of its core business — and it has an annual profit of €6 million. It is export focussed and competing internationally. The company chose to locate in Finea, a small village in County Westmeath, which is unusual. If every village could employ that number of people, we would have a well-run country.
The main problem with the location is broadband coverage. The managing director informed us he has a sort of satellite system which cannot be relied upon. At the recent seminar he described broadband provision with terms such as "broken promises about enabling the exchanges", "satellite, mobile broadband and fixed wireless all providing insufficient volume" which means he believes the national broadband scheme is inadequate. His competitors in the UK have reliable broadband connection which has meant he has lost orders and incurred increased costs. One sales staff member, in a bid to secure an order, was forced to drive back and forth into Mullingar, some ten miles away, to use broadband there. If the Government is serious about broadband policy, it must ask what it will offer firms such as this.
The second company, the Glen of Aherlow Caravan and Camping Park, is based in County Tipperary. Tourism is always a main money-spinner for rural areas. The campsite is very dependent on on-line bookings. It has the use of an ISDN line but it is costly. Visitors from abroad expect to be able to access broadband on site which is rather frustrating when using a slow ISDN line. The campsite's management is angry about what broadband services are available to it.
We have four recommendations for the committee's consideration. While we compliment the Department on introducing the national broadband scheme, it must be acknowledged it is only a first step in the achievement of optimum broadband coverage. We have highlighted the need for the immediate inclusion of 12,000, or even more, households. The original press release for the scheme referred to 100% coverage but it is accepted by all that this will not happen and there will be many disgruntled people by September 2010.
We want the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee to report by autumn on the necessary infrastructure and planning processes for rolling out high-speed broadband, particularly for small businesses. This should be set up if we believe in the smart economy document.
We are calling for a proper debate on Eircom's future. We have already publicly stated our dissatisfaction with Eircom at another committee. Serious consideration must be given to nationalising the company. It may not be the best solution but a debate must be held on the proposal. Mr. Vincent Nally knows of an exchange in his locality that Eircom will not enable and there are many others. If the company were nationalised, they would be enabled, improving broadband coverage throughout the country. Members have informed us they received grants from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs for the enabling of local exchanges. These grants have now been cut back. Eircom's telecommunications infrastructure, if properly managed, could solve many of the problems. At one time if one suggested nationalising the banks, as the late former Deputy Tony Gregory said, one would be told it was the one thing one should never say. We believe there is a strong case for the Government taking over the infrastructure that provides communications. Otherwise, we will be in all sorts of trouble.
I will conclude my presentation. Mr. Vincent Nally will add to my comments and we will take questions. I thank the committee for its attention.
Mr. Vincent Nally
My situation is that because there was an operator delivering what was a very poor wireless broadband service, it excluded our electoral division, ED, from the scheme. Eircom has made a decision on what exchanges it intends to enable and has made a categorical decision that it does not intend to enable the remainder. I am, therefore, outside the scheme. The quality of the broadband available and its exorbitant price mean I will not avail of it. It breaks down regularly and costs six to eight times the price of broadband for people whose exchange is enabled. My situation is that I am excluded from the scheme but I cannot avail of affordable or quality broadband.
How does the broadband available to Mr. Nally work? Is it provided by satellite?
Mr. Vincent Nally
No, it is a mobile operator in the area. It breaks down regularly and costs approximately €40 per month to avail of it.
What speed is it?
Mr. Vincent Nally
I cannot say offhand. I looked at getting it two or three years ago but based on the satisfaction rate of people in the area and the experience in the school, I declined from availing of it.
Mr. Nally is talking to the converted as I am in the same position and I live 15 miles from here. The representatives can discuss city link as well as rural link.
I welcome the delegation. The members of the delegation might have heard the discussion we had with representatives of Eircom last week. Many people were concerned about it. To be fair to Eircom, the problem is not the personnel at the top in Eircom in Ireland but access to the type of capital that is required for a serious national investment programme. The parent company, as we have seen from what is happening in Australia and New Zealand, where it has gone into administration, is in severe financial difficulty. It is heavily in debt in Ireland. We have a huge problem as the main infrastructure network is owned by a company that cannot afford the type of investment required to upgrade exchanges and to do the other things that are necessary.
With regard to the delegation's four proposals, I agree that providing mobile broadband to rural areas is really only a first step. I am not making a negative comment on the company, 3, because I consider it a very progressive company, but I have concerns about the technology it is using and its capability. It might well be the case that mobile broadband in the future will be able to produce the type of bandwidth that is required for next generation broadband but, at present, I am concerned about that. The big problem is that while the State is essentially subsidising the roll-out of mobile broadband services in rural areas, no other companies will invest in fixed-line infrastructure in those areas. As we develop a subsidised inferior product over the next two to three years we are also damaging the investment potential in those areas for fixed-line and satellite products because they will have to compete with a subsidised product, which they will not do.
In urban parts of Ireland, therefore, we will continue to see investment from the private sector, and rightly so, in increasing bandwidth and speeds and creating the type of infrastructure that can provide a new set of opportunities for businesses and households through a broadband link, with everything from video conferencing via the television to gaming on the television to huge research capacity via computer and television screens. Basically, it will make the computer and television one entity as an entertainment, information and communications system in the home and in a business. That is where we are heading.
The problem is that as that platform is being slowly rolled out in urban parts of Ireland, the chances of it happening in rural areas are further diminished by the fact there is a national broadband scheme rolling out mobile broadband to those areas. Whereas we are providing a broadband service to those areas, which is necessary, we are potentially damaging the capacity for the provision of a next generation broadband service. While we are trying to solve the first urban-rural divide in the context of first generation broadband, therefore, we are embedding the next urban-rural divide in the context of next generation broadband. I am very concerned about that and am anxious to hear the delegates' views on it. This is not a negative comment on 3. I am due to meet its representatives next week to discuss in detail how they envisage mobile broadband bridging that gap, but I remain to be convinced on that. Many recognised commentators, including ComReg, recognise that mobile broadband has limitations.
It is interesting to hear the figure of 12,000 for the number of homes and businesses that are outside the national broadband scheme and cannot get acceptable broadband at present. Could I be given the detail of those areas? If that is the case, I expect the committee to follow the matter up aggressively. I am sure the delegates have not plucked that figure from the air.
With regard to the Cabinet sub-committee, I believe there is such a sub-committee already although I am not sure how many times it has met. I am open to correction on this. I accept the delegation is trying to push broadband up the political priority list and I share that aspiration but I am not sure how it can be achieved. What is needed is a Minister driving the issue in the Cabinet rather than another sub-committee.
On the debate on Eircom, it might sound somewhat surprising but I believe Eircom should be taken over again by the State in some shape or form, preferably by a State company rather than the Department. A State company would be free to borrow so it could invest the type of capital required. The State itself cannot afford to raise any capital outside emergency funding at present. Perhaps we could discuss that another day. We must address the Eircom situation.
I welcome the delegates and I share many of their concerns. The committee will continue to push the Minister in the right direction in terms of rolling out next generation broadband facilities in rural parts of Ireland.
I compliment the delegation on its presentation which provides us with a very valuable insight. The area is quite difficult to pin down owing to the lack of proper analysis provided by the State. Much depends on an organisation such as Irish Rural Link to draw in the information and provide an overview. What the delegates have given us is a dose of reality. That is very important.
Each time information is brought forward we are given a wonderful press release from the Minister which is positive, reassuring and, frankly, so off the wall that we need to hear from those locally about the impact or lack of impact of broadband penetration. In his most recent statement the Minister said the national broadband scheme, which he launched some weeks ago, will provide a broadband service in every part of Ireland by September next year. Everybody knows that is not the case.
That is not in any way to denigrate the Minister because the rural broadband scheme is a welcome step but, as has been pointed out, it is a first step. If nothing else has happened today that point is valuable in itself and it is something we as a committee need to keep reiterating. If we do not see it in those terms, a strategic approach will never develop. I represent a largely rural constituency in County Wicklow and there are large patches there where people cannot get broadband. There can be arguments about the fact that it is a mountainous region and that there are all manner of structural difficulties. However, it is not just in those areas that one cannot get broadband. One cannot get it 15 km from Dublin because an exchange is not enabled. That is unacceptable. It also puts us in an untenable position in terms of competitiveness. Forfás has made this point many times, that if we are to be competitive as an economy we must get this issue sorted out once and for all.
The other point that needs to be stressed is the idea that somehow we measure penetration including mobile, but other countries do not do that, so we can massage the figures in a way that is unrealistic. That is an issue on which we need to get real. The fact that a figure of 12,000 households was mooted is very interesting. I am pleased somebody is putting a figure on it but I do not think it should be up to Irish Rural Link to do it. That is a job for the Department and the State but let us welcome the fact that there is a figure. I imagine it is fairly close to the mark.
I have not had a chance to look at this issue and I do not know if the group has done anything on it, but my understanding is that there is universal coverage in Northern Ireland, albeit that speeds are not great, but I am curious as to how that has been achieved. Are the witnesses aware of whether that is real or simply perception? British Telecom is involved there. If it has succeeded in achieving that then it would be worthwhile learning a little more about how things have been developed in Northern Ireland from our own point of view.
The first of the four recommendations is welcome and obvious. We, as a committee, have a job to do to keep that idea current in terms of the first step. The mapping at the moment is grossly inadequate and we should pursue that matter also.
In regard to the point on a Cabinet sub-committee, I have no doubt that the time has come for us to look seriously at the future of Eircom. There are different options. There are issues about structural separation and how the State would involve itself in the management of Eircom, but the first thing that must happen is that we have to do it. We must devise a strategy to deal with what is a grossly inadequate situation currently because it will not get any better and that adds a certain urgency.
As I understand it the mapping that exists currently is based on what the operators tell us. Do the witnesses feel there is an alternative way that we can extract information about who is covered and who is not covered? They seem to be able to do something so perhaps they could tell us more about how they came up with the figure of 12,000.
What is the optimum thing they would like to see happening? Apart from sub-committees and all the rest of it, are there practical things that can be done now to improve the performance generally and to make sure that this rural disadvantage that clearly exists and is very worrying can be addressed in the short term?
I, too, welcome the delegation from Irish Rural Link and thank them for their work, not only in this area but in many other areas. Transport is another area where I came across the group and I worked with them at different times. This has been a wake-up call. To some extent the witnesses are telling us what we all know, but on which we were hoping we were wrong. I compliment them on bringing these four recommendations before us. We will have to grapple with them. I know one of the companies very well. It is based in the Glen of Aherlow. One would not find a more hard-working family business. It is a huge attraction to people from all over Europe and beyond. I am well aware that it does not have access to proper broadband. It is embarrassing to have to tell tourists from Europe who want to browse the Internet that they cannot do it in a scenic area in south Tipperary.
While I accept that 3 got the contract – I wish it well – I have the same reservations about whether it will penetrate into all the areas that currently do not have broadband. As previous speakers said, there are areas, even in towns, that cannot achieve a connection even through satellite. I have a fairly good wireless connection but the house next door to me, which is only 20 ft. or 30 ft. off the line, cannot get it at all, which is unsatisfactory.
Eircom, which was before the committee recently, must be brought back under some kind of State control. It has an appalling litany of broken promises. My village was promised broadband and if we can believe the company, we have been told the enabling work has been done. We have been promised it every three months for the past two years. First we were told it was February, then May, then July, then September, then November, then the following February and now we do not know where we are.
Deputy McGrath should be used to broken promises.
I do not make promises to break.
Deputy McGrath should not lose any sleep either.
It is frustrating when commitments are made but nothing happens. Eircom staff work hard and are doing their best to explain the situation. The reason we were told then that we could not be given a proper date is that other companies were coming in ahead of the enabling date to advertise and take all the customers. I do not believe that either.
Eircom has left a sad legacy behind it. I remember the pride Eircom staff used to take in their work but now there are areas where people have problems even getting a telephone connection or where one cannot drive along a road with a machine or a lorry because a pole or wires are hanging over the road. That is disgraceful. I accept that is not relevant to today's debate. It is appalling to see the situation that has developed. The sooner Eircom is brought back into some kind of State control the better. The company needs investment from the State or otherwise. We must get our act together in that regard.
I do not have any problem with a sub-committee. I believe some members of Cabinet could be better employed to sort out this issue because business needs it. People are crying out for it and it is affecting our competitiveness. We have seen the two examples that were given. No funding is available in some Departments and we should consider amalgamating Departments and giving priority to this serious situation. I compliment the witnesses on the work they have done, especially in this area. I look forward to working with them.
I join the other speakers in welcoming Irish Rural Link and thank the members for the presentation. It has come at an opportune time, especially bearing in mind the recent discussion we had with Eircom two weeks ago.
How does the group define "rural"? Perhaps I should have asked that at the start of the meeting. I am interested in the reply because arising out of our discussion with Eircom there was a huge reaction to the debate we had in the committee. I speak about people from all over the country and not just from what I consider rural areas. I know the Minister considers rural as somebody living in a tree or a cabin on a hillside in a remote area of our beautiful country. However, as has been pointed out, people in Dublin — 15 km from the Oireachtas — and in many provincial towns cannot get broadband for various reasons, even on split telephone lines, which creates a huge problem. I would like to hear the group's definition of it because I am concerned about creating an urban-rural divide, which is being created at a rapid rate in the area of broadband.
I welcome the proposals put forward by Irish Rural Link, particularly the one relating to Eircom. We already had a significant debate with Eircom and it challenged the committee and Government by effectively saying it had abandoned rural Ireland. Eircom spoke about enabling exchanges, but having listened to what Irish Rural Link has had to say, I believe it misled us to some degree. The Eircom spokesman pointed out that of the approximately 1,000 exchanges it had, some 760 had been upgraded and it was working on the upgrading of the others and expected to have them up and running within a short time. However, enabling an exchange does not necessarily provide the necessary broadband. What is worrying and a challenge for the Government, as Eircom pointed out, is that 3 km or further from an upgraded and enabled exchange the quality of broadband declines rapidly and beyond 5 km there is no broadband. When we asked Eircom what it proposed to do about that, it said it had no plans to do anything. Does Mr. Boland accept Eircom has abandoned rural Ireland? The distances of 3 km and 5 km are not as the crow flies from the exchange but the circuitous routes. Therefore, one could be very close to the exchange but if one is at the wrong end of the transmission line one would not receive broadband. This gives us an idea of the huge problem facing us.
We must face up to our problems. The map as presented to us suggests broadband services are available in the various areas of rural Ireland. However, I, Irish Rural Link and the people living in many of those areas know it is not available. As a result of our discussions I asked parliamentary questions of the Minister, but he lives in cloud cuckoo land. Neither he nor the Department will accept that broadband is not available. The reply to my questions was very interesting. He said broadband service providers operate in a fully liberalised market that is regulated, where appropriate, by the independent Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. He went on to say, about an area where everybody knows broadband is not available, that broadband services are available from competing service providers over multiple platforms, including DSL, satellites, cable, fixed wireless and mobile lines and that he was satisfied the service was available there. However, it is not available there. We must accept there is a problem and then deal with it.
Mr. Boland has given us two case studies as examples. I could provide other examples, but I will give just one — the case of Skippy International Limited, which is just 5 km from Roscrea. I do not regard Roscrea as a remote area. It is a fine provincial town in the middle of Ireland. However, Skippy International Limited cannot get broadband appropriate to its needs as an exporting company. The company provides 35 jobs and supports related jobs in the service areas in the heart of rural Ireland. This is something we want to promote. The Government promotes the policy of decentralisation, but it does not provide the services in rural areas that would support that. In some ways it seems to support recentralisation. Broadband provision in rural areas is a significant problem. One issue that was not mentioned was the effect of broadband availability for downloading. It is even more important if it is available for uploading, particularly for business people as this helps them be more effective in rural Ireland.
I welcome the presentation. I could say a lot more on the issue as I feel very passionate about it. In particular, I could say more to people who will not accept there is a problem. It is obvious, even to a blind person, that there is a serious problem with regard to broadband in rural Ireland. I welcome Irish Rural Link and its presentation. There is an onus on us to continue highlighting the issue until action is taken. Urgent action and investment are required in this regard.
Mr. Seamus Boland
I thank members for their questions and comments. I will ask Mr. O'Leary to explain where we got the figures.
Mr. Seán O’Leary
The figure of 12,000 emerged from discussions we had with the Department. It is in our document and the Department is happy with it. The date of 1 July was picked as the cut-off point for which electoral divisions would be in or outside of the national broadband scheme. The situation could have changed since then and some exchanges may have been enabled, but they are still in the broadband scheme. Up to 12,000 houses and business premises are in electoral divisions. They are outside the national broadband scheme, but cannot access any broadband. The Department has stated that these 12,000 homes and businesses are in what it considers to be already substantially covered areas, but that they will have difficulties for technical and other reasons, such as typography, long lines, no line of sight, etc. One option is satellite, but it is very expensive compared to other options. If these areas were in the national broadband scheme, there would be a possibility of getting a subsidised satellite, but it is not an option for those excluded from the scheme.
Mr. Seamus Boland
I will refer Deputy Coonan's question on the exchanges to Mr. Nally as he is familiar with that issue. To return to a question asked by Deputy McManus with regard to Northern Ireland, we are still looking at Northern Ireland to ascertain the situation with regard to broadband there. One hears varying stories. I would argue that if we had the same speeds as Northern Ireland, we would be very happy. However, our sister organisations in Northern Ireland consider they have major problems with regard to broadband. This indicates to us that the standards people expect are rising all the time as a result of competitiveness. We might say that what is in Northern Ireland is acceptable and that we would be glad of that, especially for small businesses, but they are saying to us that they are not where they should be competitively. That is why it is difficult to respond to the question of what is the optimum service.
We say we should start with a general principle and get real in terms of the sort of broadband coverage we want in Ireland. Do we want all of Ireland to have at least a competitive level? We know there are commercial problems with regard to giving the same level of coverage in, for example, the middle of Dublin or any other city as compared to rural areas. However, all we are asking is for a basic level, of 7 Mb or 8 Mb broadband, which would ensure small businesses would be covered. It is, therefore, a question of making a decision of principle and policy.
Deputy Coveney spoke about technology and suggested that the company 3 coming into the area might take out other providers. That may or may not be the case. The point we would make is that we must be sure the technology chosen will deliver in the second stage. We must accept this is the first stage, but what is the second stage? If the second stage is compromised by what is done in the first, we are in a real mess. That is why we need this teased out. We suggested a Cabinet sub-committee, but this committee is much more experienced than we with regard to what is required and can, perhaps, come up with a better idea. We want an examination — almost like a cost-benefit analysis — as to what the second stage will be if this is the first stage.
We need to achieve speeds of 8 Mb, 9 Mb or 10 Mb to allow small businesses operate successfully. Rural areas will never want an Intel or massive operation and will never, from a business perspective, need that kind of speed. However, they will need comparable speeds, particularly tourism bodies that take on-line bookings or food exporting companies. They need speeds of 10 Mb or 11 Mb to be successful. Therefore, when Deputy McManus asked what we wanted as an optimum, we would say we want the powers that be to make a decision and agree on the optimum speeds necessary for basic competition to occur. After that, we can sort out what technology is required. The three of us do not purport to be experts on technology, although we feel we have come a long way over the past year. However, we will not be sitting any exams. We know the expertise exists, but we must agree on what we want before we decide on technology.
I would like to make it clear to Deputy Coveney that we have praised 3. We acknowledge what 3 is going to do and are impressed by its commitment and passion to deliver on its proposals. We are not attacking 3 at all but basically saying it will probably go ahead with what it is doing. We are saying it is not enough in terms of delivering the kind of broadband required for basic competitiveness. We predict that when farmers, who one might say are only taking up broadband slowly, begin to use it in a proper way, there will be great frustration. With regulation, one will want to know one's technology and use on-line facilities.
We had a lot of fun with mapping last year. We argued last year that the mapping system was wrong and that, for whatever reason, the information provided to the Department did not match up with the reality on the ground. Coverage was not as good as the original maps purported. Mapping needs to be carried out comprehensively. I am not in a position to state whether the resources are in place. When one asks an operator whether it is providing coverage for a geographical area and it responds by saying it is covering all the county in question, it is probably not stating there is a mountain, big forest or bog posing problems. There are problems with wireless technology but I am not blaming anybody. For whatever reason, the mapping was inadequate.
A better system would have involved one's being entitled to obtain broadband, be it wireless or otherwise, in a rural area under the national broadband scheme if one had tried and failed to obtain it by other means. For EU-related legal reasons and others, this could not be done. The Government will elaborate on this more clearly. The 12,000 referred to are excluded because it was impossible to find a solution that would have included them. If I lived in a rural area and could show that the existing coverage arrangements are not working, there should surely be a way for me to say the national broadband scheme will have to apply. This would have been one suggestion. There are many legal reasons it could not have be realised. It would have represented a better attempt than simply excluding applicants. We were very disappointed that ComReg did not consider the proposal in greater detail.
Deputy Coonan made some very good suggestions. Reference was made to enabling and exchanges. Does Mr. Nally want to follow up on this?
Mr. Vincent Nally
Case studies carried out around the country suggest that communities got together, when the money was available in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, and delivered broadband under a community initiative. It was achieved very cost effectively, as with group water schemes. There are examples of where broadband was provided in this manner very efficiently. The people who availed of the schemes have benefited from proper broadband and can get very competitively priced products for as little as €9.99 per month, which is very affordable. They are in very remote parts of the country. They are probably in areas where the model in the national broadband scheme will not work. County Kerry, for example, which is not dissimilar to County Wicklow, which is just outside the capital, has a lot of mountains. It also has another restriction, which concerns planning. Every one of the applications for masts in Kerry will have to be submitted to An Bord Pleanála. It shows the resilience of rural communities that they have delivered models. They are debarred from doing so now because of the national broadband scheme.
It was suggested recently that some allowance should be made for communities that can prove categorically that a wireless system will not work. If they are prepared to consider enabling their exchange, there should be some provision made such that their model would be allowed to work. On the distances referred to in the presentation by Eircom, namely, the three-mile limitation, the technology exists to increase this to six miles, not 6 km, through the incorporation of a mini-RSU or small exchange. It is quite a small piece of equipment.
Would it be cabinet based?
Mr. Vincent Nally
Yes. It could increase the capacity and extend the signal to six miles.
I hope it works better than the Cabinet here.
Mr. Vincent Nally
The technology in all these areas is improving. The scheme, as it stands, excludes communities from doing something themselves.
It is improving where there is willingness. Eircom, however, stated that beyond 5 km the service simply will not be available. It stated it will not invest and does not have a social obligation. The Government is not prepared to step in and meet the needs of those affected.
Mr. Vincent Nally
The stumbling block is that Eircom is holding on to the exchanges and will not enable them or allow anybody else to do so. The experience in Kerry suggests there is no template and it depends on the number of people availing of the service and the logistics of delivery. This is an area that should be examined. It is the ultimate best product if the exchange can be enabled.
What Mr. Nally is saying in effect is that the national broadband scheme is not delivering to rural Ireland and is killing its spirit.
Mr. Vincent Nally
It is.
The people are willing to roll up their sleeves, invest money and do the work in order to provide a service but they are not being allowed do so.
Mr. Vincent Nally
Given the way the scheme was structured, the authorities picked a point in time, that is, 2008, and decided that the electoral divisions that could not get a service were included and that the others were excluded. Since then, Eircom has continued to enable some exchanges. There are areas within exchanges enabled that are in the scheme, which defies logic, and areas such as mine where the exchange will never be enabled since there was a wireless operator operating in the area. It is a very bad service and far from affordable by comparison with others. We are facing this dilemma.
Mr. Seán O’Leary
The quality of the connection must also be considered and speed is not the be-all and end-all. We have noted that contention and latency are such that the mobile product under the national broadband scheme will not be able to live up to what it is promising. This is an issue, but it is lessened if cable or fibre is used. There are examples of people in Denmark, for example, with 100 megabyte lines and zero contention for €80 per month. However, one is guaranteeing the speed because there is no contention and latency. Quality is an issue. The speeds under the broadband scheme will probably be adequate for many householders. It is a question of guaranteeing the speeds.
I accept that we need quality in rural Ireland. It is a quality place to live.
Mr. Seamus Boland
It is a quality place to live. What we are really saying is that the knitting together of a range of services available to rural Ireland and the knitting together of policies focusing on competitiveness, providing jobs and ensuring environmental concerns are addressed will require a good, solid, reliable broadband service.
I was asked to define "rural". There are a number of definitions, which Deputy Coonan probably knows well at this stage.
I am interested in that of Mr. Boland.
Mr. Seamus Boland
The definition we are using is that of the Central Statistics Office. When it states "40% of the population", it qualifies this by reference to dispersed settlement patterns. In a way, effectively this rules out the large established provincial towns. Anything less than a population of 10,000 or 11,000 is regarded as rural. I suggest that a town of 12,000 or 13,000 in a rural area is probably dependent on the rural hinterland and therefore it is a rural town. If one adds the dispersed settlement patterns one has a considerable population regarded as rural. It is only when a settlement area, such as a city or a very large town, becomes less dependent on the hinterland that one regards the rural connection as weaker.
Many provincial towns are effectively agricultural towns which depend on the wider population. All the businesses are established to service what is happening in the agricultural areas so effectively they are rural towns and as such are dependent on a vibrant rural community outside the town itself. This is how we operate our definition. The CSO definition is not a bad one to go with.
I hope the committee accepts our statements on how to bring forward this debate. We have attended meetings where people at very senior levels spoke about disregarding the rural or regional economy because of the times we are in. Irish Rural Link will not accept this philosophy. Our fear is that those who are trying to get us out of the problems we are in will disregard the regional and rural economy. Rural Ireland always had the fail-safe of emigration but this is no longer there. We will have serious poverty unless we can maintain jobs in rural areas and this will be a challenge. We are always speaking about being competitive. Being competitive means one does not operate with one hand tied behind one's back but this is the case for someone who does not have broadband. That is our main argument.
I reiterate that we welcome the Minister's initiative on broadband. We welcome his commitment and that of the Department. However, it is a first step and we are very interested in hearing about the next steps. Action needs to be taken to include the 12,000 sooner rather than later.
I thank Mr. Boland, Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Nally for their presentation. Transcripts of today's presentation will be forwarded to the Minister for his comments if necessary.
Mr. Seamus Boland
I thank the Chairman and the committee members who contributed. We know it is difficult to be given time to come before the committee and we are appreciative.