Talk:Meteor (mobile network)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move to Meteor Mobile Communications?

Agree, is it neccessary to hold a vote if not controversial? Djegan 19:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, but you have to get an admin to move the article when the target exists (which it does). --Kiand 19:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Understood. Djegan 19:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just moved it to Meteor (mobile network) due to WP:NC of " use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.". In this case its most common name is Meteor, and disambiguating through paretheses gives it a shorter name. I just went ahead and did it due to it seeming quite clear-cut, but if anyone has a major problem with it, feel free to move it back. I also changed all links with AWB but, again, I'll change them back if there's any major objections. It's fine to use the full company name for something like Orange SA but I think it really seems innappropriate wehere it gives it a LONGER name. - Рэдхот(tce) 14:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just browsing through this page and had a quick thought. I may be wrong, but I thought Western Wireless had bought out the minority shareholders stake? AFAIK they own 100% of Meteor now, but it's worth checking out.

According to here its a wholly owned subsidary of Western Wireless now. But for how much longer...--Rdd 00:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


In the article it says Meteor DID not apply for a UMTS license. Have they applied now?, because it seems to give the impression that they didn't, at first, but have now. - Gerbon689

Okay, the story is that in 2001 the Director of Telecommunications Regulation (now Comreg) held a competition for four UMTS licences. Vodafone, O2, and 3 applied for and got three of the licences. Meteor being at that point a start-up and not having the money to develop a UMTS network did not apply. The fourth licence remainded dormont until just a month ago when an expression of interest for the fourth licence (licence "B" 3) was recieved by ComReg. This is widely believed to have been from Eircom Group plc. ComReg have hence reactivated their procedures and called for further expressions of interest in the licence, which may or may not lead to the fourth licence being issued. The deadline for this was last Friday, we don't know if Meteor have expressed an interest yet. Formal applications for the licence have yet to be called (proposed date: 22nd July) and the deadline for reciept will be 9th September.

Short version: Meteor did not apply in 2001. They might have a chance now.--Rdd 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well if it was Eircom, it will probably be used by Meteor since it seems very likely that Meteor will be bought by Eircom.

Yeh Meteor didnt apply in 2001 when Eircell (now Vodafone Ireland) and Digifone (now O2-IRL) did. Meteor, Eircom, Smart Mobile and Denis O'Brien where the bidders for the 4th 3G license issued by ComReg in 2005. The three remaining bidders were Eircom, Smart Telecom and Meteor. Then Eircom took over Meteor and it was thought that they would definately get the license however Smart Telecom won it. In 2006 Comreg removed the license off Smart Telecom due to their failure to pay a guarantee bond on it and it was given to Eircom (who thus owned Meteor) So thats how they have the license. (Ro2000 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

Orange Legal Action[edit]

Does anyone know, on what grounds Orange took legal action against the decision to award the license to Meteor? - Gerbon689

Their website had details in 2000 when the challenge happened but the news archive doesn't go back beyond 2002 now - which is odd as they started in 2001... --Kiand 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeh i think the reason why Orange took action against the Meteor Consortium being awarded the license was because at the time it was an Irish-American led consortium and Orange at that time owned by Hutchinson Whampoa, thought that Comregs Predecessor was being biased in awarding the 3rd GSM license to an Irish-American company over a UK based company.

(Ro2000 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC))


I placed a neutrality warning on this article. I don't believe it was written by an objective contributor. Have a look through it, particularly the Rapid Growth section - it looks like it was written by someone in the marketing department of Meteor. Some of you might disagree, but I think it's quite self-promotional. Damndirtyape 08:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It was actually me who wrote that part of the artical entitled "Rapid Growth" As you may be able to see from my IP address i am from Northern Ireland and have nothing to do what-so-ever with the Meteor Mobile phone company. I am doing a telecommunciations course and am interested overall in the industry wheather it be in Ireland mainland Europe or the USA, and as such, have contributed to articles on other mobile network companies also. I apologise if it may seem that it was impartial, i was just highlighting a fact, due to my studying of the industry that the irish cellular market is moving into exciting times from a duopoly into a maturely competitive market with the introduction of Meteor, 3 Ireland, and soon to be Tesco Mobile Ireland. (Ro2000 16:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

Fair enough. I do think it could be more objective though. You're onto a good point there (the one you just mentioned), but maybe you should consider generalising it to include 3 Ireland to explain diversity and maturity in the Irish market. I would also avoid using superlatives and the like. Apologies for thinking you were Meteor, though. Damndirtyape 09:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is ok. The only reason that 3 Ireland is not mentioned in this article is due to the fact that their growth at present is somewhat slower than Meteors, (~1.7% of the market are 3 Ireland customers) to fully mention it in a more relevant mannor, perhaps this should maybe be mentioned in the [| Communications in Ireland] article, and the 3 Ireland artical which ive put in already.
--Ro2000 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree that this section is biased, the first bigger paragraph is fine, and completely based on fact. However I would recommend deleting the second smaller paragraph which lists some of the offers Meteor have. It is a bit too specific. ** User:Nick,Limerick, not registered!

I agree that the second paragragh is 100% dodge. It is advertising the services that Meteor provide and show you how to avail of their offers. Hardly adding to article. Also, using words like "innovative" shows the articles objectivity. I understand Ro2000 that you do not work for Meteor, but your admiration for them shows somewhat in the article. Cormac

Thanks for the critique Cormac, this has been noted and I have edited it to remove it. I agree that it has looked dodgy and I only added that because I wanted to highlight a point that Irish networks in the south of Ireland can be as cheap to use as northern (UK owned) networks and not just dominated by the big two players. That is why i have also been editing 3 Ireland's entry due to very competitive services being introduced, and will do so to Eircell-Vodafone and O2 Ireland, as they are beginning to offer more competitive services and pricing to customers.
--  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MeteorConsortium.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:MeteorConsortium.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)