Okay. I'm sorry then that I was at least explicitly wrong in my assessment. But implicitly, the government does own the infrastructure, even if not explicitly so - if one unauthorized company were to install lines on multiple privately-owned (whoever owns them, I do not know, and I still doubt they're not state owned, but great, regardless) electric posts and roads, then, the government would see to it that they stop doing that. They would initiate force, on behalf of the actual infrastructure owner (or perhaps against it, if it was both the startup telco installing the lines AND the infrastructure owner), to stop those lines from being installed
That is, at least implicitly, government ownership of the infrastructure. The government can't both be said to not have control over a domain, and have a control over a domain. There has to be at least *some* control there. I would in fact say, consistently, that the government owns everything in that country's arbitrary geographical area, for it has at least some control over everything, and the nominal proprietors ownership is conditional on the acceptance by the part of the state, in other words, as long as the state chooses not to exert the superior right it has over your property.
Sorry for going off a bit. In short, you are probably right in the short end, but I feel I'm still right in the point I wanted to make. It is an implicit ownership of infrastructure by the part of the state, no matter how you word it.