Yellowstone Holds The Phone

Yellowstone National Park's new cell and wifi plan blocks coverage in sensitive areas

After at first getting all excited about providing cell and wireless Internet coverage over large areas of the park, it seems Yellowstone officials are getting cold feet: They now plan to block coverage at key sites, including developed areas like the Lake Hotel, Old Faithful Inn, Roosevelt Lodge, Old Faithful Lodge, Lake Lodge and Mammoth Hotel. They're also calling for the relocation of three communications towers, one of which is near Old Faithful.

While many have praised the park's efforts to maintain a pristine environment, other commentators worry that it could deny those in trouble a tool for survival:

Accidents can and will happen and restricting cell phone access in such a large swatch of public land is going to cause more harm than good.
Just last summer, two women were rescued from Alaska’s Denali National Park after they’d gone missing for five days. They were saved because one of the women had a cell phone, and she was able to get cell phone service and call her mother, providing a rough idea of their location on the fifth day.

For now, cell phone towers will stay banned from roads, campgrounds, and anywhere in the backcountry, so don't expect to call for help if you get cornered by a bison or a bear. You'll just have to handle it the old-fashioned way—with wrasslin':

Do you think there should be expanded cell coverage in Yellowstone? Tell us in the comments section below.

—Ted Alvarez

Park’s cell phone plan raises safety questions for backcountry hikers (Montana Kaimin)

PRINT THIS PAGE EMAIL THIS PAGE RSS FEED

Digg Delicious Yahoo Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Google Newsvine Facebook Twitter

READERS COMMENTS

Look, it is not about Emergency service or being rude to the 15k visitors a DAY in Yellowstone. Out of the thousands of acres of land in this park 95% of the visitors never go 15ft from the boardwalk. Most of the "wilderness" people are worried about doesn�t have cell phone coverage anyways, and even if it did the visitors are so few and far apart that a Chatty Cathy on a phone is no big deal. All this ban is doing is making things worse for people in the busy areas of the park. Now instead of talking to mom and dad or surfing the web on your phone you have to find something else to do for the hours a day that you are waiting for a geyser to go off. Believe me with 15k people in ~2 miles of boardwalk you are not worried about a "pristine environment" or a peaceful walk in the woods.
Posted: Apr 25, 2009 Joe

The logic that says cell phone use in the wilderness compromises the experience could also be used to say two or more people holding a conversation in the wilderness compromises the experience. Whether one converses through a device or directly seems to be a technicality. As for coverage in the historic hotels, the Old Faithful Inn was built in 1904 with telegraph connection--state-of-the-art technology for the day. An argument can be made that television and even wireless Internet have no place in the historic setting, but getting in touch with mom and pop to tell them about your day in Wonderland seems to go hand in hand with tradition.
Posted: Apr 24, 2009 FRM

I can understand if there isn't cell coverage (I work at a rafting place in Daniel Boone National Forest near a state park where there is no cellphone service) but I don't think any place should intentionally restrict it. Bottom line: it can save lives. For me this issue is not about convenience because I avoid my cellphone with hiking and do like to get away from it all. I wouldn't like to be hiking with someone jabbering behind me. HOWEVER, I think what matters more than comfort is safety, and cellphones should be allowed for that purpose. They might need to publish/post information on cellphone trail courtesy, but blocking just seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Posted: Apr 23, 2009 Cassi

The national parks have a long tradition of denying many amenities that people consider to be necessities. There are no televisions available in any national park lodge or hotel that I've inquired about staying in. This is because staying in your room watching Seinfeld reruns is something you do when you're stuck in an airport hotel, not when you're in a lodge which you had to reserve months in advance.

The argument that wireless coverage would save lives is dangerous to me because of the false sense of safety provided by a piece of equipment that can fail in a suburban back yard. Too many would skimp on proper preparation thinking they can just call 911 for help, resulting in more dangerous encounters.

Bottom line, if you feel that you cannot take the time away or suffer the inconvenience of being disconnected from your daily life in order to visit some of the most beautiful places on our planet, please stay home and make space for those who are excited by the prospect.
Posted: Apr 23, 2009 Jack

In an emergency it would be nice to have cell coverage. But too many people simply can't disconnect for a few hours or days to enjoy true nature and disturbing those around them. Thing is, go prepared for emergencies, and be safe. Learn what it is to be responsible. How on Earth did we survive all of the years before cell phones?
Posted: Apr 23, 2009 Garry

As a person who has relied upon a cell-phone in a wilderness survival situation, it's a very bad idea to deliberately restrict communication access in our nations recreational wilderness areas. Hopefully the range and ubiquity of future cellular network technologies will make the issue moot. Also, I doubt many people would really be using their cell-phones for non-critical purposes in the back-country, but I can't say for sure.
Posted: Apr 23, 2009 Tim