In 20 years, people won't understand iPods, or why you would have to physically carry around data anyway.
edit: And given trends in solid-state drives, local storage will be cheaper and more energy efficient than a wireless network for a long time.
Bandwidth (in the sense intended here) is measured in bits/second: how do you measure that from a station wagon [full of mag tapes]?
Now a freeway full of station wagons ... that has bandwidth.
edit: I always understood the quote as "the [potential] bandwidth"- the bandwidth that can be available using the station wagon as physical infrastructure.
And secondly, you just measured latency there, not bandwidth.
That's 1 hr latency, unless I'm mistaken. Latency doesn't include disk operations on the client side, does it? Is latency time between a signal being sent and received, or between sent, received, and acknowledgement sent/received?
ie, is latency time(client->SYN->server->SYNACK->client->ACK->server), or time(client->SYN->server)?
At some point, though, you get diminishing returns. If all you're doing is playing mp3s at 192 kbit/s, existing wireless is fine and future wireless will be more than adequate. There's no need to add the expense of putting local storage on a mobile device if you can achieve the same end cheaper with cloud hosting.
Now, this is all academic, as we're talking about a radio, and I don't think they're likely to be around by then. Whether or not a device includes local storage will be an economic decision given its intended usage and market conditions of the time, which nobody can predict with great certainty.
Look at remote places in Canada or Australia.
Local data caching is important.
If you can get a cell signal, you can get streaming media, or at least you will be able to. I don't see that being much of a problem.