Pretty much sums up the P.R spin of what they're saying, they want to reap the benefits of having networks in densely populated and business areas for maximum profit margins while expecting the government to deploy in the less profitable areas. Which would simultaneously keep their profits high, competition low and make them and their sector look good thanks to penetration into the less profitable areas.
Meanwhile having the government also deploy "overlapping" networks will cause competition in those profitable areas which in turn would encourage companies to deploy into the less profitable areas rather than just milking the dense high profit ones. Which will truly help get broadband to more people instead of just high paying businesses.
Another way of saying that.
The panelists highlighted the importance of infrastructure sharing, and avoiding costly duplication, to maximise profits while minimising expenses and competition.
That would be best if their goal was to get lower cost broadband to places other than the most dense high paying areas, though that's not the case as they are businesses, they are focused on the profit and nothing else, they're not some socialist amalgamation.
Some irony is the overlap from the government network could made expanding into the less dense areas seem more appealing/profitable than without, and when or if they did expand into such areas they will no doubt boast about how they are pushing forward to provide broadband to more rural areas. Which would be thanks to or at least happening sooner thanks to the overlapping/competition that they're complaining about.
Sign up with Google