I agree that it's unsuitable for lots of tasks, but the government's really only thinking about web and e-mail when they talk about broadband; 3G/4G should suffice for the majority of users. Well, it would be better than nothing, and ultimately it's the price they have to pay for living in the middle of nowhere.

The biggest problem with 3G is going to be coverage; as you say, Cheltenham's OK, but I find as soon as you drive around the Cotswolds, you quickly drop down to GPRS. And when you get the train down to London, there's no 3G signal all down the Stroud valley until you emerge at Swindon - that's half the journey. Hell, Kemble station can't even get enough signal to maintain a phone call. And as soon as you get 10 minutes outside Swindon, you lose 3G again.

If they can't sort it out in relatively high-populated rural areas or commuter train lines, I wouldn't hold out much hope if I lived in the highlands - the business case for putting up a tower for 10-20 people to use once in a blue moon is so weak it means they'll be the last to get it.