I dont know, true 3d tv? (rather than two offset 2d images) The bandwidth requirements for that would be atrocious.
Frankly I am not entirely sure how you would practically image things in 3D, so bandwidth is hardly our problem.
A 4320p 100fps 3D image with a 22.2 channel surround sound will apparently eat about 600-1000Mbps once compresssion for transmission is complete.
This is effectively the highest performance television standard we will ever require since at that point it appears we have hit the resolution limits imposed by human physiology.
So 1-10GBps should be able to cope, which is well within the capability of reasonable cost P2P FTTH connections. (If you are going for FTTH you are better off going P2P anyway since it turns out fibre costs almost nothing, it is just the cost of digging the trenches in the first place that dominates over everything, including maintenance)
Theres already three dimensional projectors that use lasers or light projected onto smoke to create depth of image.
Most of those volumetric systems are of questionable usefulness as an entertainment system because of the horrible buzzing noise made by many types, especially the ones that use laser ionisation of the air.
95% of homes will have broadband by 2017,
According to the ONS there will be roughly 23 million households in the United Kingdom by 2017, which means there will be 1,150,000 households without broadband?
That is quite a lot really.
Additionally many of the areas will have only broadband as it is understood today, some of which have connections slower than my first ever broadband connection (300kbps) which is effectively useless for most of the value added tasks that can be performed with broadband these days.
I am afraid that this is another case of "go big or go home".
Universal fibre broadband would have numerous benefits, both directly to the state's finances and indirectly to the populace in terms of increased convenience, economic activity and acccess to huge quantities of information and entertainment.
its pretty much impractical to get universal coverage for the same reason free to air TV doesnt have 100% coverage forcing some people to rely on sattelite tv.
Universal Coverage is only impractical because the state is unwilling to pay for it. Numerous studies by various engineering consultancies have priced up the entire programme at around the ~£20bn mark.
It's about as practical as having effectively universal provision of running water and electricity, which we have now, largely due to the action of state monopolies that were run on the basis that access to these services was critical to the functioning of society. For instance, see the provisions of the 'Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899'.
Broadband is rapidly becoming just as critical to functioning in a modern society and will provide numerous benefits in terms of reduced expenditure on services that it partially replaces, such as conventional television broadcasting.
However when a UK Company like Immarsat can afford to launch a Billion Pound sattelite network to provide global coverage offering 50Mbps down and 5Mbs up for only a few tens of thousands of subscribers then yes I would say it was self financing.
Unfortunately if you ever try to actually price up an Immarsat data plan you can rapidly see why it is self financing.
And lets not forget the Iridium fiasco.
But anyway, back on topic.
