Talk:Transatlantic communications cable

message: In the table at the bottom why are some entries listed as "England" and "Scotland" while others are listed as "United Kingdom"? England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom. For the sake of consistency one form should be used (either all home nations or all UK). Rob McDougall 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency?

message: TAT-8 is claimed here and in its own article to be the first fibre-optic cable, laid in 1988. Our table also lists CANTAT-1 as a fibre-optic cable, however, and it was apparently laid in 1961.  Its low capacity makes me think that the fibre-optic designation is a typo. While CANTAT-1 article is unhelpful on this point, a Web page called International Fiber Links lists CANTAT-1 as "pre-fibre".  Should we change the table to show CANTAT-1 as being "galvanic"? —Eric S. Smith 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's first, TAT-8 or CANTAT-1? 

message: Does anyone know the cost to lay these things? How is it done? Is it one boat that drags one enormous cable across the ocean? What happens if there is a fault in the middle?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.120.82 (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost, Details on laying cable 

message: Transatlantic telephone cable → Transatlantic telecommunications cable — The main bulk data transmitted through these cables today represent non-phonetic information, that is, mainly of other types than sounds. I guess the video-downloading over the Atlantic itself accounts for a larger amount. Current naming does not provide an appropriate target to describe the transfer medium for all those other types of data. If moving, the first article sentence should instead read just information rather than telephone traffic, and perhaps link to telecommunications cable as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I fixed the major "what links here"-links from individual cable articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Transatlantic telecommunications cable 

message: When cables become obsolete or redundant are they left on the sea bed or taken up for scrap? Presumably the old copper based ones would have a high scrap value (although the fiber-optic ones would not). I have never seen any information on this. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Far as I know, the price of scrap copper has never been high enough to make that happen. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does happen - increasingly so because of the value and more awareness of recycling etc. There was a ship CRS Holland that did this for cable owners. I saw estimates in 2016 that 90%+ of cable was still on the seabed representing billions of dollars worth of copper etc The CRS Holland was reeling in  a couple of million pounds worth a year.SandrinaHatman (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposal, if any, of obsolete cables  

message: Ran across this article while looking for something else. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atlantis-2]] 

message: The "Emerald Express" link goes to a page which redirects to "Emerald Express (EmX)" which is something to do with a bus service. Not sure what to do about it, but just thought I'd highlight the potential issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.1.197 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the alert. I know even less about the topic, but a quick Web search apparently confirms. I hope other editors will check my work for errors. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link goes to wrong page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Transatlantic communications cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160111100643/http://aronsson.se/hist.html to http://aronsson.se/hist.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Archive link was to a 404, fixed it by changing it to an earlier date. Hitechcomputergeek (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What exactly does this mean? Why are the TAT and CANTAT cables not private? Are they government subsidized, rather than run for profit? Why are they "non-TAT" cables? If "TAT" means "Transatlantic telephone", then it seems to be suggesting that they aren't transatlantic, but then the one that entry that actually lists where the cable runs makes it clear that it, at least, does run across the Atlantic. I think this section could be clarified a bit, because it's not at all clear right now. AnnaGoFast (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes a distinction between those provided by consortia of telecoms companies and those provided by non-traditional telcos or other types of company. However, I think this distinction is obsolete and it makes things confusing. eg Telecoms companies now participate in private cable consortia and the majority of cables being laid are financed differently these days (often by the so-called digital or OTT companies). I vote that we merge the lists as so long as ownership is clear it doesn't serve much purpose to separate them like this. SandrinaHatman (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Private" cables? 

message: I've added some of the most recent cables and built pages for them. However, I can find no information about Midgardsormen which is the one red item on the list. I assume it is a failed project or was subsumed into one of the other projects. The link provided by whoever added it goes to some random page. I vote to delete this row.SandrinaHatman (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency of list

message: The article says "It was active until 1965." Really? 99 years seems unrealistic.  Although a reference is cited, I'm not able to access the reference. Also, the external link https://atlantic-cable.com/Cables/CableTimeLine/atlantic.htm says "The 1866 cable was abandoned in 1872." which seems more realistic. Of course, it's possible that the "It" in that sentence refers to something besides the cable.  It's not clear to me. Mpwrmnt (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long was the 7/27/1866 cable in use?