Can you hear me now?
Verizon Wireless wants an affirmative answer to that question if you're in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, and says it needs a cellphone tower possibly 80 feet tall in Kings Canyon to get it.
A short notice that ran in the Federal Register on April 1 says Verizon wants to locate the tower on Park Ridge near Grant Grove in Kings Canyon.
According to the notice, "Park Ridge is an established telecommunications site for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Current structures on Park Ridge include: two concrete block structures containing NPS and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) communications equipment with power generators; a 20-foot fire lookout tower; two 40-foot lattice towers with NPS and USFS telecommunications equipment; and a 30-foot tower on the NPS communications building supporting a passive reflector used for land-line service operated by Verizon California."
Of course, if Verizon receives approval to locate the tower there, and does indeed install one 80 feet tall, it would dwarf all those other facilities. Beyond that, though, is the question of whether there's a need or a desire for greater cellphone coverage in the two parks?
That, of course, is an aesthetic question as much a philosophical and even practical one. Ever since the world became "wired" it seems you can't leave home and get away from the rest of the world. Should you have cellphone coverage while hiking down a trail in a national park? Should you have to endure someone else yapping away on their phone in a national park setting?
Of course, it's nice to be reachable in an emergency or for business purposes. And where there's cellphone coverage, there's also some form of wireless Internet available as well.
But is this a safety issue, a commercial one, or one to better society in general? If it's a safety issue, how did society manage to survive all these years without cellphone coverage in the parks? And how would greater cell coverage in the parks better society?
Questions aside, it's now up to the staff at the two parks to evaluate the request under the "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and National Park Service requirements, policy and regulations. Once completed the NEPA analysis including the effects, if any, on cultural resources will be available for public review."
You can send any comments you'd like the parks to consider to: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, Planning and Compliance Office, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, California 93271. Or you can email them to [email protected].
Comments
Jess Stryker makes a good point.
If a decision is made to allow a cell antenna in this area, it doesn't sound like it has to go on yet another tower - use what is already on-site. Unless there are technological barriers to different users sharing tower space, such sharing and/or use of existing structures should be a requirement for all such installations in parks.
Wow. Never thought I'd see so many people agreeing with Frank_C. Kinda surprising! :)
I dont understand...Verison doesn't give a damb a bout your safty.or the disruption it will cause,concrete truck's, heavy equipment, cranes,power supply, exc....all they realy want is to make more money...also,how will they get ride of it after it becomes just another pease of junk in the woods...will it cause another big mess.. ahhhh.. ya..
Well, I guess I'll put in my two cents in this discussion. There should be parts of the larger national parks and wilderness areas where cell phones do not work and the internet is unavailable. Remoteness and isolation have special value that is becoming increasingly difficult to experience. Our electronic umbilical cords that tie us to the rest of the world should be occasionally severed. Yes, I know. Everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves. Sorry, I disagree. There is a book, Mountains Without Handrails, that addresses this issue. Cell phones and internet connections are electronic forms of handrails. Let there continue to be places that remain inconvenient, potentially hazardous, remote and cut off from easy and immediate contact with civilization.
If young people are turning down jobs in this economy because of lack of cell phone service, they probably wouldn't be the best employees. I do agree that employees in parks need to be taken care of but I am tired of seeing so many people at work constantly talking and texting on cell phones. Also a cell phone does not guarantee your safety. Bears and other animals can attack you before you get your phone out-unless your talking on it the entire time. And in that case you don't need to be out in the woods anyways. Also, I can't believe your equating annoying adults on cell phones to kids who are excited to be in the woods making noise in the parking lot. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
As a 'young person', I take offense at that, because if you're giving a program, then it's awfully hard to talk on the phone while leading walk or talk, no? I've never turned down a job based solely on lack of cell service, but it's something that I consider when I know I won't be able to afford to pay through the nose for long distance in park housing.
It's not about needing to have phone service at work. It's about making sure seasonals who rely on the park for housing and utilities have at least one way to communicate with the outside world when they are off duty Not having an affordable landline, cell service, or Internet when you go home is like living in a cave. It is isolating and lonely.
People take these things for granted, especially when they've never been in the situation. Sure, there are some who are fine with this (eg - backcountry rangers), but for many, it is like falling off the face of the earth for three months a year when people can't reach you and you can't get to them. It's not fun, and the Park Service, as well as other agencies, needs to start treating seasonals and interns better. We are not your gophers, or 'just seasonals'. We are the future of the agency.
Not everyone feels that the sound of "excited" children is the music of heaven. In fact, I would much rather hear adults yammering on a phone than kids screaming. It's wise, when discussing use of nature, to realize not everyone shares the same tastes in outdoor experiences. In that spirit, I'll say this: While I can't stand being around kids, I've become a crusader for getting kids into nature ala Richard Louv and his "Nature Deficit Disorder" concept. With that in mind, I'm all about modernizing parts of natural treasures like our National Parks. Grant Grove is already city-like a lot of time. Ditto for Artists Point and Norris Basin in Yellowstone, Hurricane Ridge and the Hoh Rainforest in Olympic, any of the iconic viewpoints in Yosemite, the coast drive in Acadia, and any of the postcard locations in any other park. Why not get some cell phone coverage? It won't change the fact that you can walk an hour from any of those places and be completely immersed in wilderness - the kind of kid-less, phone-less wilderness I love. The front country tourist magnets are the baby steps that get kids (and adults) a taste of nature. Some of those people a few years later might decide it's time to see what lies beyond the parking lot.
Equating a desire to have technological communication with an inferior employee of the park system is painfully myopic. Is the desire to be able to call Dad and say hi on his birthday from the comfort of your cabin anathema to respect for nature? Is exposure to the wealth of knowledge and information available on the Internet somehow going to degrade the experience a ranger or seasonal employee offers to visitors? Wouldn't it be nice if some of the park folks could become email buddies with some young visitors from suburban Detroit and share pictures as the season progresses? It already happens and it already makes a difference. I can't imagine what logic would lead one to think potential natural history interpreters seeking locations with technological comforts would make them inferior employees. I could argue, though probably on equally unstable footing, the opposite. Technophobia and misanthropy are not generally qualities you look for in someone you want to spread the good word about nature...Ed Abbey notwithstanding. :-)
"Not having an affordable landline, cell service, or Internet when you go home is like living in a cave. It is isolating and lonely.'
Hmm, my wife and I lived "in a cave" for a total of about 20 years. Most of that time the nearest phone was at least 80 miles away. I honestly do not remember feeling isolated and lonely. We were so busy and wrapped up in our work that we usually felt there were not enough hours in the day to get everything done. Those were some of the happiest years of our lives. It is much easier to get to know yourself when you are cut off from the chatter and hectic pace of modern living. I understand that some people must have immediate access to family and friends, particularly when a loved one may be seriously ill. But please do not make it sound like suffering simply because the Internet is unavailable or the nearest phone is a few miles away. That is not a hardship - indeed it can be a blessing.