Phred <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
> GB <gb0807@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote

>>> 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"?

Telstra, it was owned by the govt.

> 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.

Nope, its whether telstra gets to wear the legal USO obligation as a consequence
of not having to pay the govt for that country wide phone network.

> (But I admit I may be wrong there.)

As always on a friday night.

> 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?

Nope, thats what the poxington mostly does with most of its telstra lies.