In article <Ub6dnXgMHfJbUZrVnZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@internode>, GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote:
>Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in news:fu7k20$4m6$1@news.datemas.de:
>> They shouldn't, but that's not my point. My point is that that private
>> companies shouldn't be forced to provide unprofitable services.
>
> Consequences of receiving a country-wide telephone network for
>free do not include the right to cherry-pick which bits of that
>telephone network you want to operate and which bits you don't.

1. Who got "a country-wide telephone network for free"?

2. I don't think the present argument is over bits of the network,
it's rather over bits that *aren't* on the network. (But I admit I
may be wrong there.)

3. I see this was cross-posted to aus.comms.mobile. Does that imply
you think it would be okay to use a mobile-style connection for the
bits not yet on the network?

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID