On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:14:18 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> 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.

And the Government owned Telstra.

The Government then sold Telstra (including its assets and liabilities,
etc.) to the public.


>> 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.

The Government OWNED Telstra.

The people who bought shares in T1, T2, and T3 paid the Commonwealth money
in exchange for a company which had certain assets, including "that
country wide phone network".

Are you suggesting that the Commonwealth received money for selling
something it didn't own (because it had previously given it away for
free to Telstra)?

Did the Commonwealth rip the public off, or were the prospectuses wrong?