I learned a long time ago, before she was born actually, that a modern girl in a modern world can use technology to... go climbing!
And we do. I would never want her to think her cell phone stood in the way of that. Because day in and day out I spend far more time on the cell phone than she does. Why, that would be hypocritical (gasp!)
Seriously, you can't Luddite the future into the past. Accept it or don't - doesn't matter one whit.
"People brake in the middle of the road to watch animals. The added distraction of a wireless signal - allowing a driver to text Aunt Madge to say how great the trip is - could have disastrous consequences," he said.
Although this is probably not the usual or cheapest way to go, wireless companies can actually do a decent job in hiding cellular towers by getting them to match the natural settings (ie disguising them as trees). I noticed that there is always some above ground instrumentation in a small shed or small gated compound. If they (the wireless companies) can go one step further and house that instrumentation in a buried vault, then I wouldn't have a big problem with it... (if you don't know it's there, how could you object)? Might piss off a few woodpeckers though!
Was trying to do a community service by linking this article. Just seems like a no brainer that limiting infrastructure and technology in the few places that we have set aside for nature and wilderness is a good thing. Not trying to start a debate about cell phone usage. I am as addicted to my I-phone as anybody. Btw, I just drove the RV 15 miles from where I am camped/climbing to get a cell signal, lol. And for the record, I have never told my kids when/ if they can use their phones. They are old enoug to make those choices for themselves. IMO it detracts from the ambiance of the natural setting to be forced to listen to someone conducting their business for hours in a loud voice, including screaming at their employees, at the base of a crag while everyone else is just trying to enjoy a peaceful day connecting with the outdoors.
If you're deaf like Werner I guess it wouldn't matter. I probably wouldn't care about graffitti if I were blind either. ;)
I am thinking more of the wilderness and hiking/crags not visitors centers, campgrounds and congested areas. Certainly didn't mean to whine or start a controversial thread. Just trying to get people to consider what makes going to National Parks and especially wilderness/semi wilderness areas so special and different from their everyday world.
When Wifi is ubiquitous I won't have to come home and nobody will ever see or hear me again.
Maybe you just don't like noisy people. I can't stand them either.
One thing I've discovered - I have a triggerable form of Coprolalia. I also have that disease where I can't remember the name of my disease in case anybody doesn't believe me. In the circumstances you describe, I suddenly start swearing like a sailor, covering all the bases from God to scat and everything in between. Busting out brand new conjugations that would make your head swim. It's a very serious condition.
^^ I would be concerned if they wanted to expand those roads and buildings into the back country. The article says all that probably needs to be said for both viewpoints. For those that are commenting without having bothered to read the article it says that there is limited cell service in Parks like Yellowstone in developed areas but that they are considering expanding service into the backcountry from how I read it. Read the article, from todays Yahoo home page, which is the op link, and posted comments there and decide which viewpoint you agree with after considering the trade offs. And of course there are much bigger things to worry about, but encroachment on our preserved areas in increments can eventually add up even if it is only an un needed cell tower here and there. Not much to add really.
Back to the quite campsite with no cell service for another day. :)