Because the company is so illiquid and the shares are tied up...

Because the company is so illiquid and the shares are tied up with the major shareholders, you are never going to get anywhere near enough shares without talking to a major shareholder and negotiating directly.
All it would do would be push the share price up, and potentially cost you more to buy in your negotiations.
And after you doubled or tripled the share price you might still only have 1% of the company.
TPG would negotiate directly.
Even if you did do it via the share market the brokers will ring up the owners anyway and tell them that someone wants to buy x million shares, are you interested?
I don't think domestic roaming will be declared as it was opposed by Telstra and Optus and both had very good arguments as to why it should not be done. Also surprisingly for me, many rural submissions were also against it.
One argument was that if a major carrier goes down all their customers would start to roam instantly. This would flood the network and potentially crash all mobile communications in the country. The Telstra mobile network carries over 50% of all mobile and voice traffic, if it goes down, and all of their customers begin to roam it will flood individual towers, especially in rural areas where Telstra may have 3 towers and Optus has one, and Voda has zero.
The authentication servers will also be flooded.
So if Telstra goes down it will probably take the other two networks with it.. Not a popular decision for the ACCC when that happens. Both Telstra and Optus are investing in towers that are clearly uneconomic, just for the coverage bragging rights. Optus just spent a considerable amount of money getting mobile communications to William Creek with a population of 10 people. It will never pay for itself.
There is no way that William Creek would have got a tower if domestic roaming was declared.
So the argument that carriers won't invest in non profitable towers is a valid one.