Talk:Telecom dispute between Gibraltar and Spain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spanish Restrictions[edit]

It has been suggested that the Gibraltarians are 'paranoid' about Spain. Far from it, we understand the situation better than most people, however the problems described are real. The description of the situation, taken from the sources given, are accurate.

On a number of occasions I have invited editors posting from Spain to explain WHY there is a problem with telephones. Spain has a modern digital network and managed to cope with the split of Czechoslovakia into two states and the emerging nations of Africa, yet there seem to be un-usual 'technical difficulties' in implementing the 350 code for Gibraltar.

Many people mistake the issue of number space with actual telephone lines, for instance the UK has twice changed its numbering plan to introduce more area codes and to provide for extra services. Similarly Gibraltar needs more digits to allow a second operator access to the market.

The present article presents the view from the Gibraltar point of view. If anyone can explain the rationale for blocking the development of a territories telephone network because of a three hundred year old sovereignty claim which is rejected totally by the people of the terroritory, it would be educational to read.

--Gibnews 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is anticipated that this problem will be solved, as at this time it has not been done, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Two hundred years of history seem to have been edited out of the intro. --Gibnews 13:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200 years of history isn't relevant (phones haven't existed that long) - I think that this article should be about:
  • Why the dispute exists (because of sovereignty dispute)
  • Why it's wrong (international agreements flouted byh Spain)
  • The effects of the restrictions
  • How it's being fixed.

I think it does that well at the mo.


NotMuchToSay 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be not only educational but also more accurate to review the main article taking into account the following facts:

  • Since the 1970s Gibraltar had its own IDD code (350) assigned by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); it was accessible from any telephone network worldwide. Therefore since the seventies there was no limit to the Gibraltar phone number planning and availability using Gibraltars own country code +350. Gibraltar was soverain in the telephonic sense.
  • Gibraltar international telephone interconnections were at least threefold:
    • Via any phone companies operating in Spain (i.e: C&W, BT, Telefónica, etc.)
    • International submarine cable (dating back to the XIX century) - (lowest cost route indeed)
    • Via satellite
  • A Spanish decree of November 16, 2001 granted Gibraltar 100.000 Spanish (+348563) telephone numbers. Only one week later CMT assigned 100.000 numbers to Gibraltar.
  • High international termination rates set by the Gibraltar phone operator seems to be the only problem. That high price inclined carriers using least cost routing, especially in the US, to prefer to route calls to Gibraltar via Spain.

79.152.7.55 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the dispute is now over, the above are not 'the facts';
  • The 350 Country Code was not available from every country as Spain, would not implement it and insisted that Gibraltar was part of the Cadiz province.
  • The Gibraltar numbering plan was limited because only five digit numbers were accessible from Spain.
  • The response to Spain 'granting Gibraltar 100,000 numbers' ie a five digit numbering plan administered by Spain was not too different to 'stick it' it was a stupid offer.
  • Since the Cordoba agreement, Spain has accepted 350 and the situation has normalised. The Gibraltar regulator has increased Gibraltar numbers from five digits to eight which allows for development.
  • Least cost routing via Spain no longer works.
--Gibnews (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

I think that the article should be moved to Gibraltar telephone numbering dispute. The current title is somehow misleading; it seems to me like a dispute between the directors of the Gibraltar telephone company.--Joshua Chiew 11:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the dispute is now officially over, after a bung of 200m euros, it could now move to the Communications in Gibraltar page as a historical note on how to make money.

However, it was never a numbering dispute, it was a sovereignty dispute. --Gibnews 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering plan revisited[edit]

Claims that "Nothing prevented Gibraltar from expanding its numbering plan. The "restriction" was that new additional number could not be reached from Spain"

This is an OPINION of a wikipedia editor nobody else has ever said this.

The telephone dispute was only ever a political one, adding new IDD codes to exchanges is a regular event.

That the problem existed between two EU members is shameful, but the dispute was finally settled and there is no need for revisionism. --Gibnews (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I told you, I'm a telecom engineer and I'm waiting for your arguments about my statement being an "oppinion". What did prevent Gibraltar from expanding its numbering plan? Gibraltar could and actually did it (assigning more than 15,000 mobile phone numbers by the date of the Córdoba Agreement). I should mention that, for example in 2002, there were already more than 30,000 lines in Gibraltar (10,580 mobile subscriptions and 24,512 fixed lines, source). Having said that, again, which would be the problem with a redaction such as this: Consequently, only 30,000 numbers available in Gibraltar could be dialled directly from Spain. As foreign operators could route calls to Gibraltar through Spain, due to lower tariffs, it was impossible to guarantee that a call arrived to its destination, if beyond the 30,000 alocated plan. With a population of nearly 28,000, this caused a shortage of new numbers that could be allocated to new telecom operators, thereby being called by the Gibraltar government an obstacle to the deregulation of the industry as required by the European Union. As you know GSM numbers where eight number-long, so that showing that the problem was "only" the unability of foreign calls to be routed effectively (and I say "only" because I do think the Spanish restrictions were nonsensical, but regardless of that, the role of wikipedia is providing precise information).
BTW, with your blind reversion strategy (BTW, you reverted on the grounds of a sentence that has not been ever in the text), information about the results of the Gibraltar claim and the Spanish offers that were rejected by Gibraltar, has been also removed, so that, instead of reverting again, try and edit only what could be improved. --Ecemaml (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide a source to back up that claim, simple as that. Pls don't clutter my talk page with a copy of your edits, duplication really isn't needed. Also as I pointed out previously a confrontational attitude is unhelpful. Justin talk 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, in my message I've just highlighted the differences between both editions, since you reverted it on the grounds of being too technical. Therefore I've asked for a clarification on such statement. Instead of answering, you've simply removed my question. You mention that your reversion is just because you've read it (however, I'm the only person enjoys such a privilege :-)). It seems strange that you talk about a confrontational attitude. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must, however, bear in mind that "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience", see WP:MTAA. Reverting material on the grounds of it being too technical is self-explanatory and perfectly justifiable. RedCoat10 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have it in mind. That's the reason why I asked Justin (unfortunately, Justin, instead of answering, simply removed my message). Here you have the message:

This is the "technical text" I found in the communications article:

And this the text I edited:

If you could please make it clear how I made "too technical" the original text, I'd be able to fix it? BTW, I don't see none that is too technical. On the other side, can you point out which statements are not sourced? It seems that you change your argument every time you revert, seeming that you aim actually to block the article. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Again I ask: is the new edition of the text more technical than the previous one? If so, which sentences? Of course this is a rhetorical question, since I've asked Justing more than five times and his only answer has been reversion, reversion and reversion (BTW, the new paragraph I've added in the "technical section" is appropriately sourced... however, it's reverted again and again, with only futile arguments). If you're able to explain it to me, I'd be glad to fix it (the funny thing is that this article has been listed in a complain on POV editing when the reversions by Justin were made on the grounds of it being too technical. And commenting your statement "being too technical is self-explanatory and perfectly justifiable"... well, it's justifiable but not self-explainatory. When asked about the too technical paragraphs or sentences, only vague, evasive answers are provided. It sounds to other issue. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are two issues, [1] is the diff where I politely pointed out your edits were simply too complicated. I reverted you today because there was no consensus for your proposed edit. In both cases, I explained this in my edit summary and pointed you to the talk page. The reasons were clearly spelt out, deliberately attempting to confuse them is both obstructive and unhelpful in building a consensus. As you've alluded to the NPOV noticeboard, I pointed out what my concerns were there in polite terms. Today you've filled this page and my talk page with argumentative edits so I saw no reason to respond. In addition, on the AFD discussion you simply made a bad faith accusation against me because I made a perfectly valid deletion proposal in line with policy. As another editor noted on the talk page observed, every time an editor disagrees with you, you seem to treat it as part of some nonexistent crusade against you. You're approaching the subject in an argumentative and confrontational way and I've just noted yet another sarcastic comment twisting comments I've made elsewhere out of context. Now if you're prepared to stop this and try and work constructively with other editors it will be a different story. Justin talk 17:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us take a step back from this;
Firstly its not a matter of your OPINION as a telecom engineer, or mine. It is well documented in statements by the Gibraltar telecom regulator that Spain's refusal to implement the IDD code for Gibraltar limited the ability to increase the numbering space.
In respect of Pay-as-you-go mobiles, the service was introduced on the basis that they could not receive calls from Spain. All contract mobiles could and were limited to five digits and ended in 000. The restricted numbering available resulted in the provider being unable to sell more contract mobiles.
However, instead of trying to whitewash the affair by shifting blame to Gibraltar telecom, why not include a paragraph WITH REFERENCES presenting the Spanish case for blocking phones. I have suggested this before but you declined.
Thankfully since the Cordoba agreement this nonsense has stopped and things are working normally, its something which should have been done long ago.
In the same way that creating queues at the frontier, blocking phones, opposing UEFA membership, taking legal action about voting in EU elections and all the BAD things Spain does against Gibraltar are a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, rewriting history to cover up those things does not achieve anything and the actions are in the end more destructive to the image of Spain as a modern nation, than they impact Gibraltar.
Frankly if I were you I would keep quiet about blocking telephones in support of an irredentist claim which is going nowhere, its hardly Spain's finest hour. And the next time you break the 3RR there will be a complaint. --Gibnews (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibnews, you go on mixing your own feelings with the actual content of the article. Please, stick to the content of the article.

  1. "It is well documented in statements by the Gibraltar telecom regulator that Spain's refusal to implement the IDD code for Gibraltar limited the ability to increase the numbering space". That's right. Therefore the article must talk about the Gibraltar claims, identifying them as such and not trying to show them as the reality. A good definition of the Spanish restriction is this one (by Marion Monti, it should be enough):
  1. "All contract mobiles could and were limited to five digits and ended in 000. The restricted numbering available resulted in the provider being unable to sell more contract mobiles". Fine. That information does not seem to be available in the article (obvious as it seems that your strategy is simply reverting and reverting again). However, here you have some facts. In 2003, there were 26,168 fixed-line lines and 4,410 GSM contract lines. The sum is larger that 30,000 (about 30,500). It's a fact and therefore must be included in the article.
  2. "instead of trying to whitewash the affair by shifting blame to Gibraltar telecom, why not include a paragraph WITH REFERENCES presenting the Spanish case for blocking phones". Argueing on what you think my purposes are is not relevant for the article. I'm looking for sources on the Spanish side, but I won't include them until having proper references. On the other hand, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just stating that there were no physical impossibility in the Gibraltar side, but the refusal to play the Spain's game (the right thing to do, IMHO). The Spanish restrictions only applied to calls from Spain to Gibraltar. It caused that international calls were not able always to reach Gibraltar (because of the routing schemas of the circuit-switching infrastructure). I'd suggest you to call for a third-party oppinion (and better from unrelated parties, not the usual "friends").
  3. The rest of your "statements" are irrelevant for the purpose of this article. If you feel the Spanish irredentist claim goes nowhere (I feel the same, indeed), fine, but if you're not able to emotionally distance from article editing, maybe you'd better write other kind of articles (I've previously advised you to read WP:COI). As my English is poor, I don't know whether "if I were you I would keep quiet about blocking telephones..." is sort of thread or just a stylistic resource. On the other hand, when filing your 3RR complain, don't forget to mention that you use revertion as a editorial tool and show the diffs of your own reversions. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QUOTE: "I'm just stating that there were no physical impossibility in the Gibraltar side". That may be Your Opinion but the article is not about Your opinion. The evidenced fact is that Gibraltar needed to increase the number of digits in its numbering plan and if it had gone from five to eight for landlines, then landlines would have been inaccessible from Spain.
I fail to see why you want to pass the blame onto Gibraltar for failing to solve a telecom interconnection issue- it had an obvious solution which took years to implement. The ONLY reason was the territorial claim and the Spanish desire to damage the economy of Gibraltar, and that is why the claim is relevent.
What other people do is no excuse for you to break rules, and as an administrator, albeit elsewhere, you should set a good example. --Gibnews (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, finally it seems that you stick to the disputed issues. Let's see:

  1. "The evidenced fact is that Gibraltar needed to increase the number of digits in its numbering plan and if it had gone from five to eight for landlines, then landlines would have been inaccessible from Spain". It seems that finally we reach the key issue. You're right. The problem was that, "if Gibraltar had gone from five to eight for landlines, then landlines would have been inaccessible from Spain". As most of the world operators (I don't know how many) routed calls to Gibraltar through Spain, such additional lines, outside the Spanish telephone numbering plan allocated to Gibraltar lines, would not have been reachable in most of the times. As far as I understand, such fact should be shown as so. BTW, and that's not a tricky question. I've shown that in 2003, there were more than 30,000 lines in Gibraltar (fixed-line plus GSM contract lines). How they did it? Did they allocated unaccessible numbers to GSM contract users? It's just curiosity.
  2. "I fail to see why you want to pass the blame onto Gibraltar for failing to solve a telecom interconnection issue". I'm not attempting to blame on Gibraltar. It's pretty obvious that it was Spain's wish not to solve the interconnection issue. However, it's important to make it clear that the restrictions only affected traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. At the same time, we must be accurate and show how Spain played with advantage, as most of the calls to Gibraltar were to be routed through Spain. If Siam (the Kingdom of Thailand) had refused to recognize Gibraltar code, nothing would has happened. Other winner's hand was the initial interconnection agreement signed in 1986, in which the Cadiz numbering block was allocated by Spain. Finally, it's important to highlight that Spain offered 70,000 numbers more (without recognizing the 350 code) and that Gibraltar, quite sensibly, refused the deal, as it just wanted his dialing code to be recognized. "The ONLY reason was the territorial claim and the Spanish desire to damage the economy of Gibraltar, and that is why the claim is relevant". I've found a document on the Spanish position at the time. The formal "excuse" was that recognizing the Gibraltar code, would mean that somehow the status of Gibraltar as an independent status would be recognized, something that Spain, as long as it keep a claim on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, was "forced" to avoid. The Gibraltar position must be obviously shown but also obviously presented as the Gibraltar position (I think that you feel the necessity of proving how evil the Spanish government was, but I do think that simply stating each side's position will be enough for a reader to make an opinion). BTW, the link you've provided focused on the economic involvement of the restrictions. An additional source on the Gibraltar government claiming that the restrictions were based on the territorial claim would be needed (though obvious). As you'll can see in my Gibraltar page (that were I plan to take over the world and, of course, Gibraltar) all the Gibraltarian complains to the European Commission were based on the economic side of the question.
  3. "What other people do is no excuse for you to break rules, and as an administrator, albeit elsewhere, you should set a good example" Thank you for your piece of advice, but definitely it does not seem serious that a wikipedian that uses reversion as a editorial tool, disguising the actual reversion with unrelated arguments, cames here to ask me for a "proper" behaviour. Please, let's avoid such kind of patronizing discussions. They lead nowhere. Better, let's stick to the arguments. An sorry if my English goes on being awful. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You are very badly informed if you claim As most of the world operators (I don't know how many) routed calls to Gibraltar through Spain ? Most serious telecom companies routed calls correctly, some tried to use 0034567 and it was unsuccessful.
I have already explained that the PAYG GSM numbers were inaccessible from Spain but the difference is that they were bought on the contractual basis that they provided a limited service as is common with PAYG services.
It would be polite to refrain from editing the article until we have achieved some consensus.
The importance of telecommunications with Spain is that despite the best efforts of the Spanish Government, there is a lot of business conducted between Gibraltar and Spain (Unlike Thailand) 5000 Spanish workers come here daily who no doubt need to call home, and many Gibraltarians now live in Spain. Telefonica has evolved from providing a third world level service when the frontier opened to being a serious operator, with the FLAG cable landing in Estapona near here.
The plan to give Gibraltar its own (spanish) area code proposed by Spain was flawed as it only allowed for five digits, which was not enough and it would have been controlled externally.
If you feel the current article contains any factual errors, please list them here otherwise its might look like you have flagged it simply because you can't impose your opinion on an article.
Although your English is bad in places, I have not claimed it to be incomprehensible.

--Gibnews (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibnews said: "You are very badly informed if you claim As most of the world operators (I don't know how many) routed calls to Gibraltar through Spain ? Most serious telecom companies routed calls correctly, some tried to use 0034567 and it was unsuccessful."
Yes, I can possibly be badly informed. Therefore, I try to understand which the problem is (and unfortunately, the more you "explain", the less understandable it becomes). Please, answer a simple question for readers to understand the problem. Let's imagine that a Gibraltar line is given a number outside the set of numbers allocated by Spain, would it be reachable from any country in the world (except Spain) when addressed with the 350 code? I assume that calling from Spain with the 350 code was not possible. I assume that using the Cádiz area code would end the call in a Spanish phone set within the Cádiz province as the number is outside the range of allocated numbers. Is that possible to get an answer to such a simple question?
Gibnews said: "I have already explained that the PAYG GSM numbers were inaccessible from Spain but the difference is that they were bought on the contractual basis that they provided a limited service as is common with PAYG services."
Yes, you explained and I understood. However my question remains. As long as, at least from 2003, there were in Gibraltar more than 30,000 lines (the sum of fixed lines and contract GSM lines), what happened with such an extra amount of numbers? I think that the question is rather simple.
Gibnews said: "It would be polite to refrain from editing the article until we have achieved some consensus."
?? I've refrained, even if it would have be polite to refrain from reverting the whole of my editions when a significant part of my editions was not at discussion. The only edition by me has been inserting a "disputed" tag, since, as this discussion shows, there is a large discussion on the accuracy of the article.
Gibnews said: "The importance of telecommunications with Spain is that despite the best efforts of the Spanish Government, there is a lot of business conducted between Gibraltar and Spain (Unlike Thailand) 5000 Spanish workers come here daily who no doubt need to call home, and many Gibraltarians now live in Spain."
Is this the explaination then? That is, the Spanish restrictions applied only to the calls between Spain and Gibraltar (obvious, I should say) and therefore, put in danger economic and even familiar relationships between Spain and Gibraltar. Is that right? If so, that's what the article must say and not talking generically about "restrictions" that give the wrong impression that Spain has the power to enforce such a restriction beyond its borders.
Gibnews said: "Telefonica has evolved from providing a third world level service when the frontier opened to being a serious operator, with the FLAG cable landing in Estapona near here."
:-) Again you divert the attention with statements that could be possibly nice for a self-determination Gibraltarian forum but is totally irrelevant in the framework of wikipedia. Do you really think that your xenofobic oppinions about Spain are somehow useful? Don't think so (just for your information: by the time the communications between Gibraltar and Spain was restored, Telefónica had been operating for years the first public packet data network in the world).
Gibnews said: "The plan to give Gibraltar its own (spanish) area code proposed by Spain was flawed as it only allowed for five digits, which was not enough and it would have been controlled externally."
Yes, have I denied it? I remember the paragraph I introduced and you removed (I'm still waiting for knowing why):
Can you explain with plain words (you know of my inability with English language) which the problem with such an information is? The information is sourced, is attributed and is truthful (you'll see, of course that only if you read it before clicking the "revert" button, that it clearly states but again within the Spanish telephone numbering plan. If you think that the Gibraltar reaction is not fully explained or should be more verbose, please, suggest and enhancement (but alas, as you simply revert and revert there is no way of enhancing anything).
Gibnews said: "If you feel the current article contains any factual errors, please list them here otherwise its might look like you have flagged it simply because you can't impose your opinion on an article."
Please, Gibnews, remember that it's you and your fellow British Overseas friend Justin the ones that have flagged the article and prevent any enhancement of the article. My editions are in the history of the article. You're not the owner of the article and you don't have the right to prevent me from enhancing the article. It's your responsibility to point at the specific points you disagree with instead of reverting again and again, pointing to editions summaries instead of concrete sentences of paragraphs and so on. I'm a human being and therefore I don't know everything. I didn't know what happened with the pre-paid GSM lines and, quite politely, you explained it. However, you've refused again and again to answer my simple questions on the ground of you thinking you're talking with the Spanish government and not with a simple wikipedist. Again, I list my objections, questions, additions and so on:
Questions
  1. Let's imagine that a Gibraltar line is given a number outside the set of numbers allocated by Spain, would it be reachable from any country in the world (except Spain) when addressed with the 350 code? I assume that calling from Spain with the 350 code was not possible. I assume that using the Cádiz area code would end the call in a Spanish phone set within the Cádiz province as the number is outside the range of allocated numbers. Would it be accessible but with a higher cost? If so, why?
  2. As long as, at least from 2003, there were in Gibraltar more than 30,000 lines (the sum of fixed lines and contract GSM lines), what happened with such an extra amount of numbers?
Required enhancements
  1. Once you answer the previous questions, a clear explainantion on which the results of the unrecognition of the 350 code and the allocation of just 30,000 lines in the Spanish numbering plan were (again, none denies, as you seems to claim, that it was a political issue, however, there is no reason to explain the technical involvements of the Spanish restrictions instead of gross oversimplifications, which may be useful for the propaganda but not for Wikipedia). If the restrictions only applied to the telephone traffic between Spain and Gibraltar, the article must say exactly this. If there were other side effects, they must be listed.
  2. The date when the first provisional aggreement was signed, allocating numbers in the Spanish numbering plan to Gibraltar (being that other of the facts that you keep on removing, why?)
  3. The Spanish offer in 2001 and its refusal by Gibraltar. You keep on removing it. Why?
  4. The official rationale by the Spanish side. I've got sources and I'll include then once you "release" the article.
  5. Merging the GSM roaming issue with the unrecognition of the 350 code. According to official Spanish statements, roaming agreements were refused on the grounds that the numbers used by the Gibraltarian mobile phones would show the 350 code.
  6. The claim by Spain of Gibraltar using the 44 code, something that was rejected by Gibraltar.
  7. The whole timeline of the Gibraltar complaints to the European Commission and the results of them (they were unsuccessful, a fact that you keep on removing, why?)
I sincerely expect that you answer the questions I've asked and explain if you'll keep on removing the information I'm planning to include (which, BTW, seems to be, most of it, information that is unrelated to what apparently seems to be a problem). --Ecemaml (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC) PS: BTW, the article hardly talks about telephone numbers in Gibraltar but mainly on the telecommunications restrictions by Spain, so I don't understand why there are two different articles.[reply]

Technical detail[edit]

There were two articles, but it was agreed by others to merge them. I think you are taking this far too personally, and its not a place to expand your opinion. Justins argument is that there was too much detail, and for an article about the Gibraltar numbering plan he has a point. Incidentally I think he is in Scotland which is not a British Overseas territory unless they convert Hadrians wall into a canal.

The historical background is really a catalogue of futility and is pretty much immaterial now, or to be more exact tomorrow when the plan is in place.

However for your curiosity;

  • 1 a Let's imagine that a Gibraltar line is given a number outside the set of numbers allocated by Spain, would it be reachable from any country in the world (except Spain) when addressed with the 350 code?
Yes
  • 1 b I assume that calling from Spain with the 350 code was not possible.
Possible if telefonica reprogrammed its switches otherwise not.
  • 1 c Would it be accessible but with a higher cost?
No - although it was possible to call spain from Gibraltar using 0034 when the land route was blocked or to call Spanish mobile numbers which were not otherwise accessible from Gibraltar using the Cadiz exchange - but for the cost of an International call as it routed through London via satellite prior to the implementation of FLAG.
  • 2 from 2003, there were in Gibraltar more than 30,000 lines (the sum of fixed lines and contract GSM lines), what happened with such an extra amount of numbers?
PAYG mobiles did not receive calls from Spain. In a drive to free up numbers Gibtelecom offered clients local only numbers at a reduced rental. At the time dialup internet was popular and most people wanted a second landline line for that. They are in the 3nnnn group.
  • 3 Side effects
Restricting expanding the numbering plan has put on hold the introduction of additional services and other operators. As the Cadiz telephone system was unable to deal with the traffic it often failed to deliver calls.
Gibraltar has a disproportionate amount of telephone traffic compared to towns in Cadiz and the network could not cope.
  • 4 The date when the first provisional aggreement was signed
Not sure, the people who signed it are all dead or retired and I have not got a copy. prior to the first (limited) opening.
  • 5 The Spanish offer in 2001 and its refusal by Gibraltar. You keep on removing it. Why?
Its got nothing to do with the Gibraltar numbering plan, it was for a Spanish numbering plan.
  • 6 The official rationale by the Spanish side
Simple, they are insane, we all know that, but really its got nothing to do with the article.
  • 7 Merging the GSM roaming issue with the unrecognition of the 350 code. According to official Spanish statements, roaming agreements were refused on the grounds that the numbers used by the Gibraltarian mobile phones would show the 350 code.
Thats absolute nonsense. The Gibraltar mobile network number is 266. Although the numbering plan impacted mobiles, the restiction on entering into roaming agreements was another issue altogether. Strangely enough no fuss was made about the TELEX network where Spain accepted Gibraltar's country code from the day the frontier opened and traffic flowed in both directions seamlessly. Indeed I sent one to Spain just after midnight on that day.
  • 8 The claim by Spain of Gibraltar using the 44 code, something that was rejected by Gibraltar.
I don't think there was a serious suggestion about that, talk in newspapers by non technical people only.
  • 9 The whole timeline of the Gibraltar complaints to the European Commission and the results of them (they were unsuccessful, a fact that you keep on removing, why?
They were not unsuccessful, they were ignored and are immaterial to the article, they are a political curiosity which shows that a small country stands no chance of justice in the European commission. (unless backed by a ECHR judgement)

--Gibnews (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. They're absolutely clarifying. I'll open a Request for Comments as you block the addition of information about the telecom dispute on the grounds that the article has been merged with this one. Let's me quote your most glorious sentence "Simple, they are insane, we all know that, but really its got nothing to do with the article." --Ecemaml (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PD: I'm adding the no neutrality label as you've publicly recognized that you don't add a POV on the grounds that you think it's "insane". --Ecemaml (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PS: the funny thing is that yoou asked for the Spanish arguments (I quote again "why not include a paragraph WITH REFERENCES presenting the Spanish case for blocking phone").[reply]
This is the discussion page not the article, however you have also expressed the opinion that failure to recognise the Gibraltar IDD code lacked any rational basis, ie its insane, as are most of the things that successive Spanish Governments do in relation to Gibraltar. Insanity can be defined as repeating ones actions and expecting a different outcome. In recent years Spanish Government policy towards Gibraltar and Gibraltarians seems to have have been 'impose restrictions and expect Gibraltarians to want to be part of the Spanish state' The result of the 2002 referendum is a clear signal it has not worked and as the economy of Gibraltar is in better shape than the Campo further restrictions are equally insane. But the article is about the Gibraltar telephone numbering plan, and since the recognition of the Gibraltar IDD code by Spain, this is now a matter for the GRA and the Spanish dimension is history. A second landline operator has opened up with 216nnnnn and that is now more important than going into great detail over why various offered from Spain of controlling our numbering plan were rejected. Spain is now just another country accessible from the Gibraltar network. --Gibnews (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed I am in Glasgow, which is in Scotland last time I looked and I'm pretty sure its not a British overseas territory (unless we start digging and row away into the North Atlantic). I'm also half-Spanish so I find your accusations of a anti-Spanish bias rather amusing really. Justin talk 07:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again nothing to do with the article, during this period the lack of a second telphone operator resulted in a booming business for a number of callback operators and three call through operators. These tried to route calls through Spain with varying degrees of success and in some cases adding to the chaos.
Since the emergence of VOIP as a viable technology, it had several false starts, the days of conventional telephony are themselves numbered. I no longer make international calls (including Spain) via Gibtelecom. --Gibnews (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor interesting point Justin, Scotland is movng north faster than the rest of the UK, so will eventually be an island. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

There is a post linked to this article on the NPOV noticeboard. Justin talk 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the above discussion seems to have come to an end, and no evidence has been produced to justify the NPOV or FACT headers added. The article is about the Gibraltar telephone numbering plan.
  • 1 - Are there any outstanding POV items in the existing wording?
  • 2 - I have provided answers to technical queries in detail, what objections remain to the factual content in the existing article?
Failing any substantive dispute the headers should go. --Gibnews (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good joke, Gibnews. I'll explain it again (I'll do it as many times as needed for you to understand).

I've requested the inclusion of the following information in order to comply to accuracy and NPOV:

  1. The date when the first provisional aggreement was signed, allocating numbers in the Spanish numbering plan to Gibraltar (being that other of the facts that you keep on removing, why?)
  2. The Spanish offer in 2001 and its refusal by Gibraltar. You keep on removing it. Why?
  3. The official rationale by the Spanish side. I've got sources and I'll include then once you "release" the article.
  4. Merging the GSM roaming issue with the unrecognition of the 350 code. According to official Spanish statements, roaming agreements were refused on the grounds that the numbers used by the Gibraltarian mobile phones would show the 350 code.
  5. The claim by Spain of Gibraltar using the 44 code, something that was rejected by Gibraltar.
  6. The whole timeline of the Gibraltar complaints to the European Commission and the results of them (they were unsuccessful, a fact that you keep on removing, why?)

You've answered that, for instance, with regard to the Spanish POV, you won't allow its inclusion since they are insane, we all know that, but really its got nothing to do with the article.

As I failed to find any statement in the relevant policy with regard of not including a POV on the grounds that one editor thinks that it is "insane", everything is quite obvious. Therefore, I'll ask for undoing the merge of the article and including all the information I've proposed in an article on the telecom dispute. --Ecemaml (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to read Wikipedia:Civil. I spent a large amount of time ANSWERING your points in detail, there is really no need to repeat them. It was the consensus opinion to delete the article about Spanish restrictions on Gibraltar telecoms after they were abolished. The Government of Spain finally saw the light (or the money) and acted sensibly in recognising the Gibraltar IDD code which solved the problem caused by its intransigence.
If you want an article on an obsolete dispute that nobody else in the world cares about I'm happy to help you get it right and to ensure it does not contain revisionist inaccuracies.
You have not answered my two questions about what is wrong about the existing wording which describes telephone numbering in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read it very carefully. I've read, for instance that behaviours such as "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" or "Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them" do not contribute to civil environment (it's a pity that you hadn't read it before this). Moreover "Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves". It's pretty obvious that your continuous and persistent attacks against my country (for instance "The Government of Spain finally saw the light (or the money)") ... so that, please, stop asking for a behaviour (which BTW, I haven't shown yet) that you are unable to practice.

With regard to your "statements", If you want an article on an obsolete dispute that nobody else in the world cares about I'm happy to help you get it right and to ensure it does not contain revisionist inaccuracies.... thank you for "allowing" me to work in an "obsolete" article (again, it's a pity that you base all your statements and "permissions" in your opinion, "obsolete", "nobody else in the world cares", and not in any relevant policy). As I told you, I have a lot of material (that you doesn't want me to include as clearly stated above) so that it will be a funny process, especially when you claim that you're the one in charge of avoiding "revisionist inaccuracies". With regard to "obsolete dispute that nobody else in the world cares about", as I've told you many times, personal opinions are not relevant. You don't decide what is interesting and what isn't and, personally, I think it's a quite encyclopedic issue. I you don't like it, please, ask for a third-party opinion.

With regard to what is wrong about the existing wording, let's take this one

It fails to clearly show that such a shortage was not a physical impossibility as it seems to say the sentence. The Spanish unrecognition of the code meant a restriction of the communications between Spain and Gibraltar only, but that was unacceptable because of the large amount of telephone traffic between both territories. This statement is unclear:

Why should they suppose that the +350 code was available through Spain?

Why "even"? As long as the proper dialing code was used, the calls terminated in Gibraltar.

Incomprehensible. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is of course very bad practice to delete user contributions from non native language speakers on the basis of being 'incomprehensible' However that is EXACTLY what you have done on the Spanish Wikipedia to me when I tried to explain that Gibraltar had a digital switch. I have corrected your poor use of English. It was not MY choice to amalgamate to the article about Spanish restrictions into one about the Gibraltar numbering plan, but as that has been done, it makes sense to keep to the topic, as OTHER editors have requested.
NO the Spanish failure to recognise the Gibraltar IDD code meant that it was not possible to expand the Gibraltar numbering plan. Why should we suppose that the code was available from Spain? because that is what IDD codes are for and that is why countries implement international dialling using them. That is why the ITU allocate them and define the international telecoms environment, so that different administrations can interact with a level playing field.
as regards 'belittling your country' it took a long time for the Government of Spain to comply with international norms, and that was only when HMG gave the Spanish pensioners 200m pounds for pensions they never made real contributions towards. If you have any explanation of the Spanish restrictions or why they were lifted, it would make interesting reading, although it has nothing to do with the article which is about The Gibraltar numbering plan which since the Cordoba agreement has nothing to do with Spain.
Again you are badly informed, Spain blocked transit calls to Gibraltar using 9567 - Only the Spanish operator could determine that the calls did not originate in Spain, that data was not passed on to Gibraltar. But these technical details, which if you are a telecome engineer you should understand and are not germane to an article with the given topic. --Gibnews (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

This article should change its name since about 80% of it deals only with the Spanish restrictions. Of the remaining, much of the info is in Communications of Gibraltar, being only the information about the numbering plan not covered in there. I'm planning to split this article. --Ecemaml (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Telecom dispute between Gibraltar and Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Telecom_dispute_between_Gibraltar_and_Spain&oldid=1209872046"