As Cell Service Expands, National Parks Become Digital Battlegrounds | Hacker News Reader

As Cell Service Expands, National Parks Become Digital Battlegrounds

govtech.com

30 pointsjonbaer51 comments

“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

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_...

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.

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 :)

> First responders support the plans

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

The ROI on that seems pretty bleak from a business perspective. Without paying customers’ usage to bankroll the buildout, I find it highly doubtful that any carrier would agree to emergency-use only stations.

When you make an emergency call on a GSM network it specifially uses the tower which provides the best signal, which may be on a different carrier. In most countries you don’t even need a SIM card to make an emergency call.

My point is there is no technical reason why the emergency sevices couldn’t put up towers for 911 calls only.

I think the argument is that it's not economical to set up towers only for emergencies. Technically no problem.

I wonder if S&R planes are equipped with a device that can simulate a cell tower. If/when it detects the lost party's phone, it can provide a search radius and potential comms channel (depending on signal strength).

Basically a Stingray device for geolocation purposes instead of surveillance.

That requires an S&R plane to actually be in the air. That is usually not the case when somebody has a problem.

I have a GPS beacon that sends a distress signal to a satellite which then may a cause a plane to get in the air.

> I have a GPS beacon that sends a distress signal to a satellite which then may a cause a plane to get in the air.

I've been wondering, are there any such satellite-based distress-signaling tools that only charge you for the service if you actually use it? I imagine most people would gladly pay through the nose for actual emergency services, but would otherwise not desire to make a single cent in monthly payments for a service they don't use...

I wonder if the perverse incentive of "well, it's not serious to pay $10k for a rescue, I'll just struggle through" would lead to worse outcomes.

Any idea what the monthly costs are on those things? If it's like $20/month, and they have 100k subs, with maybe 50 annual rescues, you're looking at $40k / rescue? Numbers totally made up, was just looking for a feel on how they stack up.

You just made me find the answer to my question actually.

I had looked up the costs a few days ago and found something along $50-100/month for the subscription (Iridium).

But in the process of searching for that again, I learned that the term to search for is "personal locator beacon", and apparently those do operate exactly like I mentioned! https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/personal-locator-bea...

Thanks for the nudge :)

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

I noticed hiking yesterday a sign for UHF deep in the forest, presumably for emergency fire response at this time of year (summer). Ironically the mobile reception is sub-par in East Gippsland but I got a, relatively, strong 3G signal from the top of Genoa Peak, where the nearest phone tower is perhaps 10km away on the valley floor.

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

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.

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

Outside of cities, "first responder" is a more literal than official term. The off-duty nurse needs to be able to call her buddy with a truck who can get to the scene faster than the ambulance. The volunteer search party wants to coordinate their activities via their personal cellphones. The lost child wants to speed-dial 'mommy', not try to figure out whether or not to call 911. Emergency numbers only just isn't practical.

Also, cell coverage would probably reduce the number of "emergencies". Hikers who are two days late is an emergency, but not if they can phone someone to say they safe and waiting out the weather.

> Also, cell coverage would probably reduce the number of "emergencies". Hikers who are two days late is an emergency, but not if they can phone someone to say they safe and waiting out the weather.

This also holds without the quotes; people who have access to their phones can communicate amongst themselves in the early stage of a potential emergency and fix the issue themselves without having to wait until shit gets so bad that they can legitimately summon a full-blown SAR response.

The inverse is also true. You're responsible for your own safety while hiking etc. You should have no expectation that SAR will come out looking for you because you've done something stupid that requires someone to help you. [ADDED: And depending on electronics generally is pretty much a gamble.]

Allowing people to do stupid things is part of our culture. Without SAR things like skiing, climbing, sailing, surfing and even basic camping wouldnt exist. If a national park is setup, and people allowed in, we should expect some level of SAR coverage and notice of that coverage. Otherwise, non-pros attempt private rescues that often end badly.

>Without SAR things like skiing, climbing, sailing, surfing and even basic camping wouldnt exist.

Lots of people have done and continue to do those and other activities at times and places where there's no SAR. And, especially if you are in a remote area or bad weather, there is no guarantee that SAR is going to find/help you.

It may not have been your meaning, but it's a really bad idea to go into the wilderness with the mindset that someone will always come to your rescue if something goes wrong.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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?

> You don't extend cell phone coverage across millions of acres of protected national park space for edge cases like "saving someone's life".

Safety of life is not an edge case. Distress signals have been consistently regarded as the most crucial traffic (and have been prioritised and released from requirements (like the duty to use the least power needed, licencing requirements) that apply to other users) on radio links for more than a century.

There are a variety of non-cellular satellite communication devices that can be used for contacting emergency services. For example the Spot Gen3 or Garmin inReach. https://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=100 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/561286

I have to pay extra for those, whereas I already have a cell phone.

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

Intelligence agencies? If there are places where you can step outside of cell reception, there are places they can't track you.

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?

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.

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.

"When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere."

--Lazarus Long

You can always leave your phone at home, or put it in airplane mode.

Can I please leave everyone else's phone at home too?

If you jam, but that's illegal.

There's no chance of that happening long term. We already live in a world where there is no place where without data coverage if you pay for fancy equipment and service. Global coverage for cell phones is just a matter of time.

There is a place in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Q...

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.

There are satellite systems if you care enough to get one.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_...

(Especially) if you're driving through unpopulated areas with no cell service in winter and what you're carrying in your car won't let you survive a cold night on the side of the road, you probably need to be carrying more clothing and other supplies in your car.

You can leave your phone at home. However like everyone else you will also have to learn that you don't get to dictate what other people do.

This is hyperbolic. Turn off your phone, or wrap it in foil, or get rid of it. There's a discussion to be had about phones that don't actually turn off, but it's a much less dramatic one.

Get away from what? Nothing says you have to take a phone with you. And there are still a lot of places where there aren't many other people.

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com