Indeed Leo/Brendan, you need good coverage for 3/3.5g to work well.
Jim, I'm simply not convinced by the argument that it's always better for the government to something rather than nothing but I'd like to side-step an argument about ideology. But saying it is better to deliver something useful for the next 5 years does not seem relevant here; the plan, from what I understand it, would be to deliver by 2020. And even if were rolled-out overnight, I'd want to see the numbers on how many households were benefiting from an expenditure of 100m a year. Even if it 100k households got broadband who had previously no means whatsoever to access broadband, this would represent a subsidy of 1k euro a year to a somewhat arbitrary section of the population.
I was sceptical for a long time but I'm now of the belief that wireless will solve the problem on its own. I could actually buy the argument that the government should support ensuring there was proper universal mobile phone coverage in the country. This would have tangible benefits like helping in life-saving/emergency situations as well as allowing people to watch youtube videos. Proper 4G mobile will arrive in a few years and will blow current wireless out of the water.
jdwex, fibre probably seems future-proof but it has a serious flaw. I remember in the mid-early 90s confidently arguing we'd all have fibre to our desktops within a year or two. It never happened despite my conviction and cheap/low-tech cat5 twisted-pair ethernet became ubiquitous. That's because fibre was and still is expensive and relatively tricky to install and maintain. Installing and maintaining a 10/30km run of fibre buried under windy boreens just to connect an exchange to a single home just seems like madness to me. Criss-crossing cities and even suburban areas with it makes plenty of sense.