Hacker News Reader

Comment by rafram | Hacker News Reader

I feel so, so mixed about this.

It’s going to be unambiguously good for wilderness rescue and disaster response.

But I like camping and hiking in remote areas in order to remove myself from the world. And I think the lack of connectivity discourages unprepared people from taking on more than they can handle in the wilderness. If the wilderness becomes fully connected, will it spoil that feeling? Will it lead to the last few truly remote places in the US suddenly being overrun with TikTok crowds? I honestly have no idea, and it’s a little scary.

But it feels like an anachronism that we don’t already have worldwide connectivity, and I guess this was just bound to happen.

View on HN

There are virtually no unconnected places in most of Europe yet wilderness is still dangerous. It is good that rescue services can help you if accident happens (and it can happen even to the adequatly prepared).

„There are no unconnected places in most of Europe“ Then you haven’t traveled with the German railway yet!

Or, like, any space outside of a dense city :D

Definitely. But when Apple released their Satellite SOS feature, I expected that to remain the cutting edge for a while, and for all devices to eventually gain very limited satellite emergency call capabilities. Instead, it seems like we’re going straight from most devices having zero connectivity in the (US) wilderness to all devices having connectivity everywhere in the world, as soon as next year. That’s a lot of change to come all at once.

Sounds like the future. And a good one at that. The pros far outweigh the cons. If someone can't disconnect purposefully to be with nature, then that's on them.

>There are virtually no unconnected places in most of Europe yet wilderness is still dangerous.

eg. 50.30819551805026, 16.50959758078629

Why that example? It doesn't look very remote to me.

Sorry, forgot to add the crucial details. Such is the life while close to quitting work for the day.

The location, despite not being remote, has NO connectivity. It's the closest thing I can think of in my proximity that is completely unconnected. You're lucky to get GPRS there in terms of data, and most likely you won't even be able to place a call.[1] There is no broadband/fibre or any other sort of physical network connected to the buildings in the area.[2] The only way of connecting the place aside from Starlink that I've found is other satellite options[3], and it's most likely going to be 6 times as expensive and 50 times slower.

[1] Anegdotal evidence, based on many devices on two of Poland's most prominent carriers when it comes to infrastructure - Orange/T-Mobile (shared NetWorkS! project) and Plus [2] https://internet.gov.pl/map/?center=1839972.2603685544%3B649... [3] https://www.dostawcy-internetu.pl/Dwukierunkowy-Internet-Sat...

Garmin InReach has existed already for years. It didn't take the feeling away from me and I felt more comfortable having it in my backpack just in case. Wilderness adventures shouldn't be life or death experiences.

Starlink here, which includes data, is a huge jump from emergency SOS on Inreach. I do think we'll lose some of the magic of outdoors experiences when we can check nytimes.com and Reddit in the backcountry.

With Garmin InReach you can text actively. And I didn't. It is a mindset IMHO. If a person cannot control him/herself from using a phone while camping it is on them. No tech can change that and they will end up watching offline shows on their downloaded shows.

SMS texting on Inreach is so different from full data/internet. It's like smart phone vs. dumb phone. One is vastly more addictive.

It is okay for weakminded people to not to enjoy nature. Let them suffer who cares.

I doubt it is going to work very well so just hold your breath for the moment. Also the space junk issues are becoming formidable, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is all gone in 5 years, if it exists at all. Or else I’d like to believe.

Honestly, lack of connectivity completely makes these places you speak of inaccessible for a lot of people.

There’s something of a parallel with the last hikers who walked in unmapped territory. We may be the last hikers to walk in unconnected territory.

Satellite phone and communicator devices have been around forever.

And they’ve been very expensive, subscription-based, and limited: no direct access to the internet, just location pings and text messages (which sometimes have to be preprogrammed). Nothing at all like what Starlink is talking about.

Satellite phones are not some special new thing anyways

People have been making TikTok videos in the wilderness this entire time, they just wait until they get service to upload them.

Sure, and people were making YouTube videos in the wilderness before that, but the accessibility that came with TikTok and Instagram created a phenomenon increased demand tenfold at many parks. That’s why you have to win a lottery to hike Angels Landing in Zion now.

Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?

> Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?

My guess is there will be some more wilderness livestreams streams, largely made by the people that are already going out to these places to produce content.

Are you particularly worried about a group of people that so far had no interest at all in taking pictures or videos in the wilderness but will now show up in droves to make competing bits of strictly-live content? Who are these users??

It was an example, and maybe not a very good one.

My point is that this will allow anyone to be an active content creator while they’re in the wilderness, which makes it quicker, easier, and much more appealing to create that type of content.

In another comment you pointed out overtourism but in this comment you seem to be saying your concern is that it will be easier to create content… for the people that are already there? Who cares if people make content or not while they are there?

Your issue is either not wanting people on their phones in parks — which you cannot control — or not wanting people in parks at all, which not only can you not control but that would also be a downright insane desire.

The reason why parks exist and are maintained is that people go to them. If nobody goes to a park, there is no incentive for upkeep or staff. Much (or virtually all) of the wilderness that you have enjoyed in your life is available to enjoy because people before you enjoyed it and made it accessible to you in some way. That is how parks work

> Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?

Encourage others to explore the wilderness?

or like most other tech - do the opposite “why would I explore in person when I can watch it from my couch”

How more demand for national parks a bad thing?

The crowds are completely unmanageable in some parks, and it’s destroying the ecosystems and natural features that the parks were built to exhibit.

Ever heard of Fossil Cycad National Monument? Designated in 1922, and by 1957 all the fossils had been taken. There was nothing left to see. The national monument was abolished.

That’s what’s at risk from overtourism.

If you’ve never been, I’d recommend visiting Lake Louise in Alberta. However, when I last visited in 2019, the lake base was packed nearly shoulder to shoulder at 7am. Hiking the trail to the tea house was like walking a sidewalk in NYC at 9am, just a little rougher and steeper. I’ve heard it’s only gotten worse since Covid.

Is it selfish to want to be able to enjoy one of the most beautiful spots in Canada without it being crowded? Absolutely. But the sheer volume of people makes in a completely unenjoyable experience, not to mention the dangers of erosion/wilful destruction/litter/etc that over-toured nature spots eventually succumb to. The nice thing right now is that there are many, many places to go that most people won’t, due to lack of accessibility, lack of cell service, etc. By breaking down barriers, you open the floodgates.

I used to despise gatekeeping, wanting everyone to be able to experience as many joys as possible. But when seeing what happens when the masses get access to delicate niches, my opinion shifts. Maybe I’m just getting older and grumpier though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Do you think that, if “the masses” were cut off from Lake Louise, you in particular would still be able to go to it?

Not sure honestly. I've been to lots of remote areas, only accessible by multiple days of travel on foot or canoe, so probably? But I live on the other end of the country, so the effort likely wouldn't be worthwhile if it were truly inaccessible.

surely there are other wildernesses? is demand so high that there aren’t any left?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com