
As Cell Service Expands, National Parks Become Digital Battlegrounds - jonbaer
http://www.govtech.com/network/As-Cell-Service-Expands-National-Parks-Become-Digital-Battlegrounds.html
======
steveax
“Industrial Tourism is a threat to the national parks. But the chief victims
of the system are the motorized tourists. They are being robbed and robbing
themselves. So long as they are unwilling to crawl out of their cars they will
not discover the treasures of the national parks and will never escape the
stress and turmoil of those urban-suburban complexes which they had hoped,
presumably, to leave behind for a while.”

― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness

------
chiph
The last thing I want to hear when hiking in a park is someone else's phone
ringtone, much less the conversation afterwards. But the point about needing
communications for rescue is a good one. Perhaps there could be lockers at the
park entrance where you swap your phone for a PLB.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-
indicating_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-
indicating_radiobeacon_station)

------
EdwardDiego
In the national park in NZ where I have done most of my tramping, there is
limited cell reception around the main village in the park (population 38),
and the mountains surrounding this village are where 90% of overseas visitors
experience the park - and get into trouble.

The introduction of that cell coverage, limited to the one valley as it is,
dramatically decreased the amount of search and rescue call-outs with
helicopters etc., often people can be guided off the mountain by phone.

I miss the wilderness aspect in that area - getting texted an hour above the
bushline is weird, but luckily I have plenty of other valleys to choose from.

So yeah, limit it to the rescue hotspots, I reckon.

------
djflutt3rshy
I realize I'm an edge case, but as someone who loves both hiking and location-
based games (Ingress! Pokemon Go! Geocaching!) this would be awesome! No more
having to download a ton of offline maps on my phone, and all those
National/State park portals are no longer inaccessible :)

------
mehrdadn
> First responders support the plans

Why can't they just put towers that allow emergency calls only?

~~~
lykr0n
Or towers just for UHF/VHF radio repeaters? Doesn't require fiber backhaul and
can be run on solar.

~~~
sliverstorm
This already exists in many parks. Which is why it's slightly puzzling that
first responders would be stumping for this.

~~~
lykr0n
My guess is that hikers don't carry a UHF/VHF radio, don't know how to use it,
or don't know the right channel to call for help. Most people have a GSM/CDMA
phone to call for help.

So, not so much help for the first responder's communication, but helping to
alert the first responders.

------
Dowwie
Hiking and backpacking is my time to unplug and tune into nature. I bring my
smart phone with me but only use it for photos. If cell phone reception were
available, I still wouldn't use it.

I've hiked all over North America in front and back country. The people who
hike beyond the first half mile of trail aren't the type to ruin their time
outdoors with cell phones.

I suspect the Telecom providers are lobbying for this. The language really
screams special interest:. "advocates for increased cell service, including
many NPS officials, say the parks can’t cling to an earlier era"

Who the hell are these Advocates, other than Telecom providers, their
lobbyists, and Alphabet?

Also, no one in the NPS is advocating cell phone reception. They've gotten on
just fine without it. They are afraid of being fired by the Trump stasi for
speaking truthfully, though.

~~~
WhitneyLand
>If cell phone reception were available, I still wouldn't use it.

Yes you would - if it were a matter of saving someone’s life.

I agree with you about unplugging to the point I don’t want to see anyone out
there if I can help it, but there’s there are a lot of interests to balance
here.

~~~
Dowwie
You don't extend cell phone coverage across millions of acres of protected
national park space for edge cases like "saving someone's life". How many
deaths in National Parks in the last 10 years can be attributed to lack of
cell phone coverage? You've just made up a non-issue. There aren't, as you
say, a lot of interests to balance in this case. Your argument is like that
used by the State about exercising its massive surveillance project for the
sake of catching child molesters. Sure, some good will be made but at great
cost and for primary motives other than those brought to light.

~~~
WhitneyLand
The point is, you misspoke, you would use it.

By other factors I mean I prefer to judge it based on the impact rather than
the concept. What would it mean to the environment, the beauty, the silence,
the safety however insignificant you want to make it.

For you it seems to be an issue of principle, for me it’s matter of what would
be the real and practical effects. If it’s as bad as you’re suggesting I’d be
against it, but not for spiritual reasons.

~~~
wcarron
Wouldn't each and every person use it were it available? But we accept risk
when we go into national parks. They are intended to be wilderness. They are
not your town park and this is posted many times throughout them.

The idea that it might "Save just one" makes it a viable option is false.
Danger is a beautiful part of nature and destroying the last vestiges of Earth
as close to beyond human influence as possible in order to cover edge cases is
ignorant of the realities of life.

We don't mourn the wing-suiters who crash into mountains on their flights. The
same for the people who venture into dangerous territory. Otherwise, where is
the limit for abdicating the responsibility of our own safety?

------
WhitneyLand
Density of visitors and their respect for the resources, seem more important
that whether or not cellular exists (leaving aside visual impact since it was
not described). Lots of voice call pollution can only come from lots of
people.

Besides what’s the point when within a few years, multiple next gen satellite
systems will be up that make that avenue a lot more practical than it is
today.

Regulate traffic, visual and environmental impact, noise pollution, whatever.
If all of that is done right what’s the benefit of cutting off what will
actually save a few lives over the years?

------
chrismcb
I don't get it... So you might be hiking and overhear a conversation? Does it
matter if that conversation is between two other hikers or a hiker on a phone?
The outdoors might sound like McDonald's? Other than the signs of the kitchen
I've never thought of McDonald's as noisy places. Most people are eating and
chatting with their meal mates. I guess I don't find a phone much different
than noiser than two people chatting. As far a ringtones go, how often do you
hear them. Go to a city park... How many ringtones do you hear? This is such a
non issue.

------
esaym
We need to have places where there is no cell coverage. We just have to have
that. The alternative is a world where we never can get away, ever.

~~~
teeray
Where I am in the northeast right now, it's about -15°F. There are roads
passing through unpopulated areas of National Forest that have no cell
service. If you break down along these roads and no one drives by to help,
what in warmer climates would be just an unfortunate inconvenience would leave
you frozen to death by dawn.

We shouldn't compromise safety because we lack the self control to turn on Do
Not Disturb mode.

~~~
Casseres
Sounds like an EPIRB for the car would be a good investment.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-
indicating_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-
indicating_radiobeacon_station)

------
nradov
In the long run someone will eventually succeed in building out a low-cost
satellite communications service. At that point any objections to cellular
service in national parks will become mostly moot. SpaceX is making plans to
deploy a constellation to compete with Iridium. They might not succeed right
away but launch costs are dropping every year.

~~~
greglindahl
OneWeb and SpaceX are both planning pizza-box sized antennae.

------
Overtonwindow
I support more towers but agree there should be limitations. If they were
private towers, requiring people to pay a fee to the park for data, then that
would cut down on use. However all emergency traffic is free. Might also help
in geolocating or triangulation of people who are lost.

