Is there any evidence that people connected to 100Mb/s or 1Gb/s services where they are available get anything like these speeds in practice (rather than just nice numbers coming out of speed test sites) - or does the bottleneck simply get shifted somewhere else?
I can saturate a 40Mb/s FTTC link from some sources on the internet but in practice most seem to hit about 3 and a bit MB/s and not much more.
I'm not even clear what you need 1Gbps for as a single user - it's all very well being able to download a typical DVD in less than a minute but it's still going to take you a couple of hours to watch it - and streaming is probably better for that unless you simply want to brag about how many DVDs you have in your media library.
Even if we suppose that someone might set up a service streaming full bandwidth blu-ray (36Mb/s) you can still get two such streams in a 100Mbps connection with a bit to spare. Frankly though I don't see anyone sourcing that sort of bandwidth for several years yet - most "HD" streams are less than 8Mb/s (eg iPlayer currently tops out at 3500kb/s 720p)
It's interesting, yes, unfortunately even big cities in the UK aren't as favourable as Hong Kong for this deployment.
Plus as soon as London got wired with such services people would be up in arms to Ofcom and MPs about the digital divide. Forget that some places are just easier to wire than others, we must all be equal, how dare those densely populated city areas with their pollution, traffic and relative lack of space have faster services than farms and idyllic rural villages in the middle of nowhere that cost hundreds of thousands or more just to reach.