What do these goals mean in practice? Off the cuff... they mean those in charge of funding will go to the telcos to ask them how to reach these goals. Telcos will advise them to give them the money to patch up the phone networks and they will then market it as 'superfast' but only a few near cabinets will get anything like the headline speeds, the rest will get 'upto' but the telcos will hide this fact. My guess is this is happening in most countries. So in answer to your question, the incumbents and their vast array of 'analysts' and marketeers will stop us achieving our goals. Very few will have access to 100Mbps unless its through Altnets.
Second question.
I would describe the benefit of subscribing to a 100Mbps service to a household would be that your family will be able to do anything online that is currently possible, all at the same time, and that if you are on a 100Mbps service you are likely on a fibre to your home, and as such that service can be upgraded as and when you need it.

Roger, your first question can be answered very easily: The main thing that will stop us achieving the infrastructure goals is revenu driven telecomcompanies. Their main concern is to get a good result for shareholders. Bringing connections to rural communities under the same conditions cities or bigger villages have, is not in their interest.

Your second question: A 100 Mbps connection is not just for the benefit of a current household situation, it is an investment for the future. To look at it that way shows the need for local-based economy and networking. Compare it to B4RN where communities do it theirselves, or to Swedish OpenNet and you see very healthy ways of broadband development, where take-up rates are no points of discussion. Everybody get their connection, economy stays local.

To quote a credible research house:

"A large portion of investors’ scepticism about telecom stocks stems from the perception that revenue can only go in one direction: down. Due to limited potential for cost cutting, this would leave telco incumbents’ free cash flows (and valuation) under structural pressure....

...Being an incumbent operator has not been easy in
the last decade: regulators have made incumbents
open their fixed-line networks at a very low unit
cost to promote service competition first in voice
then in broadband. At the same time, governments
and regulators have opened the mobile market to
new entrants each time they auctioned off new
spectrum. But technological change might shake
off this state of play. We expect that new types of
usage will increase the need for bandwidth,
requiring more fibre in the fixed access networks;
a greater number of cells and more spectrum in
mobile networks. These trends will favour players
who can afford the extra spending, mainly the
incumbents and the cable operators, and might leave alternative operators with little opportunity to continue growing their customer base via discounted prices.

Given the high fixed cost nature (opex and capex)
of the telecoms business, an operator can only
achieve positive cashflows when reaching a
critical mass of subscribers. Also, telecom equipment needs a lot of reinvestment (for network upgrades) which can be afforded only by the scale (and cash flow-generating) player."

Objectives maybe useful in signalling total scale, but is share of that scale affordable?