Talk:Communications in Gibraltar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject British Overseas Territories  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Gibraltar (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Request to update[edit]

From 10-Feb-07 the only valid prefix to call from Spain to Gibraltar will be +350, tha actual prefix 9567 will dissapears this date. (unsigned)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and past experience is that its safer to wait and see with the Spanish Government as they do not always keep to agreements.

--Gibnews 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Historically inacurate[edit]

Even as a Gibraltarian I can see the strong political bias against Spain in this article. Originally Gibraltar CHOSE to be incorporated into the Cadiz regional 956 prefix, being given 9567, 9565 and later 9564. The main reason at the time was pragmatic. To keep calls to Spain cheaper.

Its not my recollection that Gibraltar CHOSE, but that it was imposed unilaterally by Spain. However this is Wikipedia so produce a reference. If the telephone dispute looks petty and childish on the part of Spain then that is an accurate presentation of the issue. Nobody has yet come up with an explanation of it in any other terms. The cost of calls to and from countries is not controlled by routing codes but by the rates that the carriers set on them, and being part of the spanish telephone network was costly to Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging 'the dispute' with communications[edit]

As the author of both articles, I think they deal with seperate issues. I was looking forward to someone trying to rationalise why Spain blocks my phones, and its better to keep the dispute off a purely informational page about Gibraltar communications.

The word on the street is that Britain are giving them a 200m euro bung to stop playing silly buggers so it may all be over in a few months, unless the telecom companies wish to continue legal action for loss of profits.

--Gibnews 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody else has an opinion to the contrary, I suggest the proposal to merge is dropped, until such time as the dispute is resolved and can be added to the history section.



That reads a bit too much like a commercial press release, and is speculative in places. --Gibnews 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


The company may have been taken over by Orange, however as of the present date the local cell accessible in Gibraltar still identifies itself as AMENA and blocks access from my GIBTEL mobile. --Gibnews (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Most of the figures dates to 2007, 2006 and even earlier. I guess that the reports of the GRA could provide better figures. Please, don't remove until the figures are updated. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Its misleading to say the factual accuracy of the whole article is compromised, that is overkill if its only a couple of statistics that need updating. Indeed the number of lines has not much so the figures are not outdated. There is a difference between lines and numbers.
If you feel that needs updating either do it or put a template at that point, not on the whole article.
Similarly to newspapers have ceased publication so I removed them in order to update the article, but you reverted this. --Gibnews (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll move the template to the actual outdated sections. On the other hand, can you reference that such newspapers are "dead"? I talked to Gibmetal77 some time ago (not much) and he told my that El Faro still existed... --Ecemaml (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

lets not start another war, because last time I looked we were both going to be banned for that sort of thing. The figures for exchange lines may not have been published since 2006, in practise they may not have changed as although there are new connections for voice,fax lines and modem lines are being ceased. There was a block of numbers used exclusively for dial up internet, which have been replaced with adsl sharing the same physical line. VOIP has also taken off so the number of physical pairs is no longer a guide to activity.
As regards 'el faro of Gibraltar' I have not seen it being distributed for over a year, and its website has gone, although there are other editions. As it was a free newspaper and never got any advertising I guess it was not economically viable. The demise of \vox, a long running Gibraltar title was covered in the local media. --Gibnews (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gibnews, but per WP:BRD, it was you the one that should have stated clearly the reasons for the deletion of El Faro and Vox. Stating that I wish to start an edit war is not a good faith statement, but let's it pass... What you say is true, but the GRA publishes every year a report with such figures. Last ones are from 2008. On the other hand, I understand your statement about El Faro but, as told, Gibmetal77 told me (I'm looking for the message) that he had seen El Faro recently and that's the reason to revert your edition. Although it's of course a good faith edition, I'm restoring the mention to El Faro until I talk to Gibmetal. Anyway, I'd like to know whether you're allowed to edit this article? A clarification would be nice. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read wp:agf El Faro is a dead parrot, indeed looking at the website for publicaciones del sur, it seems like the whole chain of newspapers has gone. I used to read it regularly and have not seen it for a long time. There is no evidence that it exists. see Google Can I suggest YOU now take it out as its outdated. --Gibnews (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

CTS & GRA[edit]