Since bandwidth seems to be a very limiting factor here.. I think it’s more likely that vsaas is going to be adopted in countries where bandwidth is more available. For example I have a fiber connection to my house giving me the option to get 100/100 Mbs for a decent monthly cost.
In Sweden there are already a number of players that offers this type of services (Vsaas), and have done so for a number of years.
Their main target group is small to medium businesses that has no use for the video its self, they just want to know that someone is watching their premises at night and calling the cops if someone does try something. They probably already buy the small scale home surveillance as a service (connected to a security company complete with cameras in the house to verify an alarm) for a monthly fee for their home.
So could it be that the adoption rate of Vsaas depends on the different countries' ability to provide its people with high speed bandwidth throughout its entire country?
If so, I think that you should keep an eye on the Nordic countries where Vsaas already is making a mark in the surveillance market.
For VSaaS, bandwidth is one, but not the only barrier.
It certainly is a hard barrier. For example, a business that only can support a 1Mb/s upstream connection can never use hosted video for 20 cameras. It just won't fit (presuming you want more than a 1998 style CIF slide show).
This is why in the US, hosted video providers generally don't even market to applications with more than 4 or 8 cameras.
But even within the constrained segment, it does not seem VSaaS is really doing that great, especially compared to cctv kits that are now everywhere. The other issue remains that it costs far more to store video in the cloud than on the site, so the providers seem to be hoping that people will pay a significant premium for the privilege / benefits of storing in the cloud.