4 ms·

>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 unplugg

>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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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?
- zkms 9y ago
  > 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.
nradov 9y ago
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://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=100 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/561286 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/561286
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  I have to pay extra for those, whereas I already have a cell phone.

Dowwie 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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?
zkms 9y ago
> 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.

nradov 9y ago

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://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=100 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/561286 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/561286

andrewflnr 9y ago
I have to pay extra for those, whereas I already have a cell phone.