who are not network consumers any more

The telecom sector company has/is-planning a venture of providing telecom accessibility to consumers, through GSM Networks. The company must be having a utility that supplies energy/electricity. Besides the customers hooked up to the Network, there is a set of consumers / customers who are isolated, and yet consume the services of the company. This utility supplies energy/electricity to such a set also.

Hth.

I think the expression might have been clearer if they'd said "removed-from-networks consumers" --- but as far as I can understand it, it means simply that: consumers who are not close enough to be connected to the usual electrical power supply networks.
It would perhaps be more usual to say 'far-removed from...', but I can see that in this sentence it would have made it even more clumsy.
I don't see any reason to assume it means 'consumers who have been deliberately disconnected from networks', though of course that might have been ONE possible interpretation!

Presumably your company is into generators, solar power, wind generation, and that sort of thing...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs 51 mins (2004-04-22 23:42:55 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

To further amplify my response to Rita\'s comment:
It seems to me that company X is targetting \'the GSM operator infrastructure\' and \'other removed-from-network consumers\'.

Since (as I understand it) the GSM operators are very much part of the \'network\', the only way I can interpret \'and other removed from network consumers\' is to assume it means \'other consumers who are not near supply networks\'.
I can see that another interpretation is possible --- \'removed from networks\' referring to telecom networks --- but without more context, I don\'t see how one can make this assumption. Perhaps Asker could enlighten us as to the services being provided by \'company x\', which would probably make everything crystal clear!