Not terribly impressed by the T&C of google drive. I have just installed it and am now aware that all my data 'belongs to google'. All my documents are now in their keeping... hmm.

I think we should have more local data centres, but of course we can't at the moment because we don't have the infrastructure, but with rural fibre we soon could have that infrastructure and look after our own data locally, saving data transit charges.

My top ten?
Data backup

Free or very cheap communications for business or pleasure

Time saved waiting for pages to load

Freedom from the frustration of timeouts

Local citizen reporters - for this we need symmetry which only high speed fibre can provide

Security cameras we can access from smartphones when away from our property

Ability to stay in our own homes when older and bring the world to our door. (doctor skype, online shopping, company etc)

Keeping our kids in rural areas because the technology would enable them to work from home.

Regeneration of rural communities

A wifi cloud over the top of the rural fibre network, providing access for tourists, emergency services etc - this model would also work in cities. Femtocells could also boost mobile coverage.

Saving carbon footprints, analogue journeys won't be needed.

Fast, reliable broadband is far more attractive proposition to lure in the digitalllydisengaged, slow broadband puts them off and they don't engage. For us to be a digital nation we need everyone online.

I don't see the point in having a connection that is capable of going fast but is throttled and contended at peak times, that also puts people off. We need fat pipes, power showers and swimming pools not water carted from a well in a bucket.
I could go on and on, but I will stop now and see what others come up with. Please add your comments!

I find it difficult to isolate the benefits of merely having a fast connection without stating the 'usual' cited benefits e.g. access to government services, cheaper products and services, entertainment, new business models, smart houses, access to open government data, internet of things etc. Personally I think that the most interesting and transformational imapcts of superfast broadband will be those that we haven't thought of yet. I believe that people should have the right to determine for themselves what they would like to use superfast broadband for and that they will not necessarily conform to our expectations.

When talking about benefits of superfast broadband we must bear in mind socio-economic and cultural barriers to take up. As Chris has pointed out the lack of access is a barrier in itself. However, we also need to look at why Greater Glasgow only has a 50% take up (only 26% in low income households) (Ofcom, 2011) and determine what we can do to help increase this. I think that there are clearly skills and training issues and in some cases people don't know what they are missing as the O/P identifies but there are also broader societal factors such as unemployment, addiction and general social disengagement to consider.

Oh just to clarify the Glasgow stats are for access to broadband at all, not superfast broadband.

Here is a link to the summary of the Ofcom report
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/commun...

One of the things that stop people engaging is a poor connection. Even in Glasgow there are areas as bad as rural ones due to long line lengths, aluminium cables, faulty wires etc etc. The old infrastructure is not up to the job it has to do. The ISPs provide the service as best they can, but everything is stacked against them. And to people trying to get online it is a brick wall blocking them all the time. They aren't technical, they don't want to be technical, they just want a reliable connection that is fit for purpose, and unfortunately many can't get it. That is the main reason take up is so poor in areas that one would think would have access to something remotely decent. The latest report shows that the UK is really lagging behind, even in cities. http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240149311/UK-cities-fail-to-make-top... - so when you consider all the faster connections in those cities you can see how many are on really slow ones to bring that average down can't you?

Thanks Chris, you're absolutely right and I did not mean to belittle the problem of connectivity. Thanks very much for the report. Apologies for my delay in replying. I have not had time to come on here for a week or so.

HI David, superfast is generally anything faster than adsl 2+ which means its got to be over 24 meg. That's the Uk definition anyway. My definition of superfast is anything over a fibre. Once it hits copper in the infrastructure its back to narrowband.
The EU definition needs beefing up somehow, because telcos can claim households are enabled for superfast by their definition of UP TO 30Mbps but very few will get that speed, especially at peak times. I think Europe wants to explain a bit better.
That is how the telcos have got away with claiming everyone on an enabled exchange has 'broadband' and has fudged the figures for over a decade in the UK. Maybe we need to regulate our regulator and make them regulate it properly?

Rather than answer your question: "What are your top 10 reasons for everyone having a high speed connection to the Internet?", I would prefer to answer the broader question "What are your top 10 reasons for everyone having better Internet access". One of the problems with the current debate is that it is to narrowly focussed on consumer access to high speed broadband. For me, the real opportunities (and demand) lie in a different part of the fish pond!
If we take Internet Access as the frame, then we can include both mobile and fixed technologies. Each have their place in modern network design - particularly in the so-called rural final third. To force fibre into these areas too early is far too expensive at the moment. Wireless technologies can deliver >1Gbps over reasonable distances at a fraction of the cost of digging fibre or laying it along existing poles. The second myopic view that needs addressing is the fixation of getting FTTH to consumers. This is not where the demand is, nor where the innovation will happen. The most important sector of the economy at the moment is the SMB sector - particularly micro-businesses with <5 employees. This is where the growth is - and these are the people who will work more and more from home. Traditional telcos don't recognise these businesses as having special needs - yet they probably make up 80% of the demand for higher bandwidth speeds (fixed as well as mobile) - as well as higher quality (i.e. Internet not dropping out all the time, better quality of service, symmetry etc.). So, in summary, we need to get the current debate shifted so that it actually recognises where the demand is for better Internet access - and creates policies to fulfil that demand quickly. The recently published INCA 2020 vision document (referred to elsewhere) defines a structure to do this which requires the coordination (at a local level) between public and private sectors to create new specialised local internet exchanges (or hubs), so that those with really high bandwidth requirements can cluster together in ultra-highly connected business zones.

Agree with some but not all of that Lorne.
The micro businesses will not relocate to clusters in business zones. SMEs abound in rural areas, but are scattered. I agree that fibre hubs, digital pumps are needed, and then local investors can build out to customers if they have decent backhaul bricks to build with.
Wireless is excellent stop gap, we use it at the moment here, but it is not the future. We should stop thinking of the initial cost of fibre deployment and consider it as investment, and not expect instant payback. For our rural areas we need to think of ROI over many years, and payback that will last for generations. We need to do the job once, and do it right.
An SME is not going to want to travel to a zone every day, nor relocate. Connectivity should come to the consumer, not vice versa.