What is Digg?39 Comments
- gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23"The jarring ring of a cell phone deep in the wilderness is many a nature lover's worst nightmare." ...Ummm yeah, much worse than being mauled and killed by bear.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Much worse than being lost or having a medical emergency and not being able to call for help. If you're around so many people that cell phone noise becomes an issue, you're probably not in the wilderness anyway. This issue negates itself.
I recently cancelled my National Geographic subscription because the quality of the writing declined significantly in the past few years. This article confirms my decision. - spedoinkle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6and why are cell phone jammers still illegal in the us? i think you should be able to avoid Mozart being played at full blast on an 8-bit scale in the woods.
- juanbobo808, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Great title, imo. Good article, I'm not sure what to think of this debate, mainly because I'm not a wilderness sorta guy. I guess it's important to have towers in parks for safety reasons, but on the other hand I can totally see how a cell phone going off in the middle of a 3000-acre forest can be REALLY annoying. Just when you think you've escaped technology, it finds you again.
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's always bad until you need to call for help. Like everyone gets annoyed with the cops until their house gets broken into, then they call them.
- sojourner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, a little bit surprised at the support for bulding steel towers (dressed up as unconvincing fake trees or otherwise) in the protected wilderness that national parks represent. Re: those towers that "look like trees" -- a steel tower with plastic leaves or fronds does not a tree make. It's an eyesore.
But the more important point is raised in the article. The only reason this should even be considered is safety, the argument most people raise here. But a false security net is even worse than no having one at all -- because it encourages people to take stupid risks.
The parks can't be blanketed in cell phone coverage, and if people believe they're "protected" by cell phone, they'll do stupid things, wandering further off trails, getting a little closer to those cliff edges. It's already happening, and park rangers are having to handle "emergency calls" because people who are otherwise fine "need rescues" because they forgot to look at the map that they packed.
http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?_r=1&res=9C04E5DF1530F933A0575BC0A9679C8B63&oref=slogin
The NPS is already underfunded and understaffed. Park rangers have so many responsibilities (for really keeping people safe), and there are a handful of park rangers for the number of visitors and amount in land in our parks. It's not the customer service staff at Disneyland ready to handle all of these cell phone calls.
Yes, phones can be useful in real emergencies, and there is already cell phone coverage in the most trafficked areas of parks like Yellowstone for this. But building a holey mesh of towers just creates a false sense of security that may cause more people to get injured than help.
I'm hoping the "safety" argument is the only one that's even worth rebutting.
The argument better for cells better not come from personal convenience -- "Hey! Guess where I am? Nope... the wilderness! Yeah? REALLY? She did what? OHMYGOD... ". - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7alot of infrastructure will be built to support these towers... that infrastructure will need roads... with roads comes better access to otherwise difficult to access places... with better access comes more people... with more people comes more disturbance inside the park
- JoeDonH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think that the benefit of people being able to phone for emergency services trumps keeping cell towers out of parks to retain their "pristine" state. I understand the opposition's argument, but I'm the kind of dumbass that would walk off a trail and to be able to call for help once I break my leg because I wasn't looking where I was walking would far outweigh the negative aesthetic of cell towers and people chatting with their friends.
And I agree with RadiantBeing in that if you are being bothered by other people talking on their cell phones, you're probably not in the wilderness anyway. As long as the towers don't destroy any natural habitats and are as unobtrusive as possible, the positives far outweigh the negatives. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4cell phone jammers are illegal becasue the public theorecticaly owns the spectrum..
and they could have negative impact, like for 911
but cell phones should switch to animal sound ringtones when in wilderness areas. - stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5My objection is not the towers, or the service. It is the access roads that would be built, allowing penetration by all kinds other private interests that otherwise might not have gained entry to remote areas. If it was established that only the cell provider and the forest service could use those roads, it would probably be OK.
- swizzcheez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I suppose one possible solution might be to set up those cell towers to be outbound call only (no incoming allowed). However, short of that, at least in my mind, the safety issue still trumps the annoyance factor every time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I went camping last weekend in the Virginia Appalachians and my cell phone battery died the first night I was there. Who cares? The point of going into the wilderness is to experience nature, not to use your cell phone, and yes, even when there is no emergency, I've seen people socializing on their cell phones at campsites. There has always been the risk of an emergency, but now since we are so used to cell phones, we must always use them to prepare for something bad to happen. Like 30 years ago before cell phones existed people didn't get attacked by bears and other animals. Of course they did. The risk is always there and the best way to prevent animal attacks and other such emergencies in the woods is to prepare carefully and not leaving food or other things near your campsite that can attract animals. Of course you can't prepare for everything, that is why the National Park Service provides services just for these reasons. No cell phone towers in parks. No way. Find another technology that will reach farther distances between devices without the use of antenna or radio towers.
http://www.dpodgor.net - apexified, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4and when you're camping pals aren't looking you download some ringtones on their phone, maybe some wounded animal sounds... mating calls, etc.
- Zachariah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree.
(and people in the wilderness, as in movie theaters, should have their phones on silent/off/vibrate anyway -- and anyone rude enough to not do that would still be a bother even without the towers) - Zachariah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3or pique its curiosity
- kgool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4We are going to need cell phone towers to effectively drill in the national parks for oil, how else will all the oil workers communicate?
- bigdc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your cell phone is probably not going to save you from a bear (that is, if you even need saving. Bear attacks are fairly rare, and are avoidable if you do your homework). From the article:
"Cell phones give the illusion of safety," Loomis said.
"They make people think, If I have a cell phone, then someone can rescue me. Maybe I don't have to be quite as careful and take all the precautions I should have taken prior to coming out here with the understanding that I might not get rescued."
Lee Dickinson, special-uses manager of the U.S. National Park Service, agrees that better phone service may lull people into being less careful.
"[A cell phone] is a valuable backup, but people still need to be prepared," she said.
"For every story you hear about somebody who was saved because of their cell phone, there probably are stories about people who had to save themselves because their cell phones didn't work." - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They can build towers that look like trees, and not like steel monsters.
I've seen some pictures of towers looking like palms, but I guess, with some effort, they could make it look like a pain tree, or whatever fits the vegetation in the area.
Of course, they are more expensive, and a company is not a company if it wouldn't try to cut the cost as much as possible... - XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perhaps we need a standard for sending a silent only ring command for these and many other areas.
- kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now congress needs to make a law requiring people set their phones to vibrate mode when in the park :)
- absurdist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perhaps it would be better if the cell phone companies concentrated on improving service in the areas that they already claim to cover now? I mean, when one major provider's main advertising point is "the least dropped calls of any national provider," one has to wonder. I got better coverage in Belgrade, Serbia, for Christ's sweet sake, than I do here in Sacramento.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I think someone is a little obsessed with safety... get out of the house... get out of cellphone range... live a little
- node3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Scruffydan
Aside from the fact that you posted the same comment twice...
Who are you to tell me what to do in a public park? I, for one, welcome cell coverage. No one is stopping you from leaving your phone at home, or *gasp*, turning it off. - Aanr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Are there that many people in the park to justify building out the towers? With microwave back hauls and solar arrays there would not have to be that much build out for the towers in the parks. They would still need some sort of road to get to them.
- tedlick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Parks are places for nature, for conservation. If you don;t lite it then don;t go... but don;t ruin the parks for the rest of us... some of us like to get away... some of us like being out of cellphone range"
Considerate people would have their phones off unless they needed them, or on vibrate. Inconsiderate people will find ways to annoy you in the woods if they're close enough for you to hear, with or without a phone.
I LOVE being out of cellphone range-- and that's almost all the time, since I have a "pay as you go" phone that I only add minutes to when I go out of town & need an easy way to be in touch. - Irimi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The solution you ask? Solar powered UAVs. You make them like Helios [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Prototype], but much smaller. Maybe make them into helicopters somehow so they can stay stationary; this tech is feasible. That way you can have the added safety of near instantaneous communications, but you can also have untouched wilderness. Voila.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4For countless years people went places where they could not be reached... sure it may have been dangerous but people manged to do OK.
Parks are places for nature, for conservation. If you don;t lite it then don;t go... but don;t ruin the parks for the rest of us... some of us like to get away... some of us like being out of cellphone range - apexified, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2and when your camping pals aren't looking you download some ringtones on their phone, maybe some wounded animal sounds... mating calls, etc.
- spedoinkle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1and some day they'll finally figure out how this stuff gives us cancer :)
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1A big problem is that idiots that don't belong 30 feet from their mother think that just because they have a cell phone they are good to go into the wilderness, then over-stress the emergency response system because they invariably have to be located and rescued. If you can't handle the 'big scary outdoors' without a cell phone, stay home.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Dumbass, don't go to National Parks. It should be legal to shove people off cliffs whose cell phones ring.
- bigpixl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1kthxdie.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8For countless years people went places where they could not be reached... sure it may have been dangerous but people manged to do OK.
Parks are places for nature, for conservation. If you don;t lite it then don;t go... but don;t ruin the parks for the rest of us... some of us like to get away... some of us like being out of cellphone range - swizzcheez, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1(deleted -- missed that I was still in reply mode)
- Celeron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0The ringing of my cell phone will scare away the damn bear from attacking me.
- m4v1s, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Its all part of digg's system, if the story gets 30 diggs over a whole day, it does not get promoted, if it gets those 30 diggs in less than an hour, it gets promoted faster.
- theMurdocVolta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2OH DEAR GOD, AFTER ESCAPING THAT BEAR MAULING AND FALLING THOSE SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET OFF THAT CLIFF I WISH I COULD CALL FOR HELP, but at-least I don't hear any ones cell phone going off, it would totally ruin this experience.
/lame - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3less than 30 diggs in over a day, yet on the front page. am i missing something here?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is