HD is still compressed a LOT
Or, allow "work from home" to be almost as if you were actually connected directly to the LAN there (IF the company also has such service, which I would doubt...).
The thought is funny though - some guy thinking he's reached the end of the internet, sweating profusely, eyes bugged out, desperately hoping that he can find that HD transfer of every scrap of footage taken somewhere, for some event, that got bootlegged by somebody, and uploaded to the intarweb
Seriously though, the capability to have better HD (less compressed) feeds to more locations on premises would be pretty nice to have. I don't know what they allocate to video, but if it were, say 100Mbps, you could have quite a few very good quality streams to HD devices (or computers - the difference is becoming silly - an STB or PC ought to be allowed to "tune in").
Blu-ray playback is what, about 40Mbps (compressed)? What if you could have the data side delivering 2 such streams?
That's compressed too... Imagine LESS compression, say instead of that, you could use 80Mbps for video. HD would look even more awesome...
Also, 1080p is NOT the be all and end all of HD. Already, people are looking at "quad HD" - which will require even more bandwidth. 3D video is also on the horizon, which again, will require more bandwidth, even at CURRENT resolution(s)...
Not to mention all the plans for more "interactive" services that may eventually happen. 2-way video would also need good bandwidth to work well (esp. if it were in HD!). The list goes on...
Even compressed at Blu-ray ratios, 3D, quad HD, any future display technology is going to take a lot of bandwidth.
Verizon has fiber - to people's houses. At least they'll be more prepared than others when the time comes to deliver...
HD runs between 9-17 Mbit, depending on whether you get it via sat (most compressed), via cable (middling) or via OTA (least compressed).
1080p video is HUGE uncompressed; you need USB 3.0 to transfer it to a computer...