I’ll assume you haven’t thought it through … or am I just being trolled? 
A simple example for why what you’re saying is terribly incorrect: A phone conversation consumes hardly any bandwidth, but if it the latency (the time for your voice to reach the other party) is more than a second or so, you’ll start cutting each other off because of the delay. Or think about lag in WoW or whatever you kids are playing these days 
(acting all wise and mature) I’m afraid SAFE will kinda suck for this; the routing overhead will introduce too much latency.
Opposite to that, if you’re downloading the latest Ubuntu installer with bittorrent, you really don’t care if the blocks are arriving in order, or if there are a few seconds between requesting a list of blocks and when you start receiving them. You only care about the bandwidth because what matters is getting the whole stuff as fast as possible. SAFE is absolutely the best for this.
A third case is when you have a stream like in the case of a phone conversation, but delay isn’t that important. That would be YouTube or Netflix. You need to deliver consecutive pieces of the data in order and at a reasonably constant rate. SAFE would be awesome for this.
What I meant though is that the SAFE network does not work in a way that makes real-time low-delay direct communication possible within the confines of the network itself. In other words: no, they do not have that freedom, unless they reach outside the SAFE network, using it only as a signalling channel.
Incorrect. It may be irrelevant for secrecy, but it is crucial for anonymity.
In short:
- Fast: No, you can’t confuse latency with bandwidth because you can have both, either, or none, and it will determine the kinds of applications you can enjoy.
- Security: Privacy, anonymity, encryption, etc: they are all very different things, so just because they’re somewhat related, you still can’t substitute one for the other.