Worldcom's protest this week about the State's nightmarish approach to infrastructure development rings true. Anyone who has suffered traffic delays and roads shoddily resurfaced after work by telecom companies in the past two years will know all about it.

WorldCom Ireland's chief executive, Mr David Hughes, issued a statement on Tuesday bemoaning the "piecemeal approach" to such development and called upon the Government to establish a national code of practice for getting infrastructure into place. This was essential for determining how and when access would be given to utility companies, such as telecommunications operators that need to install fibreoptic networks across the State.

A particular concern for Mr Hughes was the recent decision by Dublin Corporation to adopt rules for this process that would allow local authorities to give the yea or nay to every project. Currently, there are few restrictions and thus we have the well-publicised and lamentable situation in Dublin where 17 (or is it 19? Or 23? Does anyone care?) telecom companies are busy turning the streets into a living hell for everybody as they dig up roads, sometimes in succession, to put in fibre.

(As an aside here, the Corpo should institute massive fines for companies that do not resurface these pits and gouges back to perfect evenness. After all, there are strict rules should you or I need to dig up the roads outside our homes. In their current state many streets are an extreme safety hazard, particularly for cyclists, and a lawsuit waiting to happen.) But the issue stretches beyond Dublin. The same misguided decision to give the streets back to the local authorities dominates the upcoming Communications Bill. One segment of it gives local authorities nationally the right to make such decisions. This seriously threatens ongoing efforts at building infrastructure in the regions.

This, in turn, is a looming danger as businesses decide the Republic cannot match their infrastructure needs as they grow.

Certainly, because of the broadband networks already in place, Dublin is considered the only viable destination by many technology and e-business companies viewing the State as a potential site for investment.

But Dublin is congested and does not have the capacity to keep taking all-comers - and at any rate, should not be taking projects that can benefit the regions. Regional development is paramount, as IDA Ireland and Government departments know. It can no longer be an afterthought to policy.

But the State is already viewed abroad as having an archaic way of proceeding with national developments because of the need to bicker incessantly with every local council across the land for every inch of development. This does not mean that local concerns should be ignored but that local authorities would consult regional authorities, who would then help national authorities get infrastructure in efficiently. At the moment, the process involves a stranglehold of fiefdoms and local powerplays.

And then, local authorities complain they aren't getting any major job-creation projects. What part of "cause and effect" don't local and national representatives understand?

What is desperately needed is just what Mr Hughes suggests - a precise and fair national code of practice to ensure essential infrastructural work is carried out at a speed that won't leave us wondering where all the tech companies have gone in five years.

I would argue further that the Government should also take control of all access. The State should immediately take the driver's seat and insist that infrastructure companies share access along determined routes. If approval were given for a route, companies interested in a similar route would pool resources to dig up the roads once and to lay their networks at the same time.

Or the State could control the right of way and fund the basic groundwork, with companies then sharing routes. The same process should hold for mobile phone and wireless masts - which would immediately address many local concerns about having masts dotted across the countryside, each used by one company.

Such a co-operative, public-private partnership approach would spur development in the regions, which are often viewed as economically untenable areas for infrastructure operators.

The first step is to alter the parts of the Communication Bill and corporation guidelines that hand control to local authorities for infrastructure development projects. So let's get an intelligent national code in place and move forward with the crucial infrastructure projects that will keep the nation competitive.