Brussels doesn't allow it under funding rules for Superfast broadband, and we should consider the financial circumstances under which it is a viable alternative to fibre. They're few and far between, and if you can have fibre for even close to the same price, why wouldn't you?

Wireless solutions to fixed broadband services in rural areas is very unlikely to stand the test of time.

Does it have to? Well, yes - if you are the ISP rolling it out and have a clear idea on your return on investment. To be able to justify rolling out "this year's wireless technology" and knowing that it will last until the subscriber fees have paid off your investment and maintenance costs, you have to understand your customer base, traffic patterns and demand very well. Arguably, you can't. Next years YouView or Netflix may begin to rollout 4K TV which makes HD streaming video bandwidth requirements look like a 2400 baud modem in comparison.

Here's an article in The Register about why something as lowly as the SmartPhone (iSomething) will be making the current generation of 4G networks creak at the seams.

Wireless is a contended, simplex service, where everyone competes to transmit at the same time. The signal only goes ONE way at a time. Sure, you can "fake" this by running multiple channels (as 802.11n MIMO does) but that's using 100% more of the "bandwidth" per customer connection - the bandwidth that gets the headline quotes in the press releases doesn't point this out. Trunk, tusks, big and grey = elephant. No antlers - not a moose.

Feel free to discuss ...