Wi-Fi in national parks

[Lophophaps]

Parks Canada is accepting bids from companies to provide Wi-Fi in their parks, and advises that this will be in the developed areas, with wilderness left relatively pristine. My concern is that these things have a habit of expanding, slippery slope and all that. Also, we tend to follow the US lead, and Canada is very close. Will our parks have Wi-Fi?

It's good to attract more tourists, but not at the expense of remote area experiences. Already our mountains have comms that could not be conceived 29 years ago. Two links are below; there's more.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/parks-cana ... -1.1798605
http://www.greatwalks.com.au/news/wi-fi ... wilderness

[GPSGuided]

The economics of it will restrict the coverage of Wifi. So I am not worried. Even seasoned environmentalists and hikers need Wifi for basic communication, blogs and utility services. Don't see this being linked to tourist numbers but to provide basic services.

[gayet]

...Even seasoned environmentalists and hikers need Wifi for basic communication, blogs and utility services.....

Since when? I don't need WiFi for basic communication as I am out there to avoid communication. A PLB is all I'd need. No WiFi required. Blogging? old fashioned paper notepad and pencil will suffice till back in a technology equipped world. What utility services?

I must have the wrong idea or be living in a different world. WiFi is not needed. But it may be desired by those unable to temporarily disconnect the umbilical cord of constant contact with society.

[GPSGuided]

Time have changed and the proposal was never to blanket the whole wilderness area but main user access points in the park. Nothing wrong with the proposal. At the end of the day, this is a question on one's philosophy on NP. One of shared facility for all to enjoy or for conservation and tries to exclude as many as possible.

[Strider]

...Even seasoned environmentalists and hikers need Wifi for basic communication, blogs and utility services.....

Since when? I don't need WiFi for basic communication as I am out there to avoid communication. A PLB is all I'd need. No WiFi required. Blogging? old fashioned paper notepad and pencil will suffice till back in a technology equipped world. What utility services?

I must have the wrong idea or be living in a different world. WiFi is not needed. But it may be desired by those unable to temporarily disconnect the umbilical cord of constant contact with society.

You do realise you don't have to use it if you don't want to, right?

[stepbystep]

...Even seasoned environmentalists and hikers need Wifi for basic communication, blogs and utility services.....

Since when? I don't need WiFi for basic communication as I am out there to avoid communication. A PLB is all I'd need. No WiFi required. Blogging? old fashioned paper notepad and pencil will suffice till back in a technology equipped world. What utility services?

I must have the wrong idea or be living in a different world. WiFi is not needed. But it may be desired by those unable to temporarily disconnect the umbilical cord of constant contact with society.

You do realise you don't have to use it if you don't want to, right?

That's a simplistic way of looking at things....

So if the huts on the OLT had wi-fi people would be huddled around their screens, playing YouTube clips, sharing photos and videos etc...This would directly impact those around them. You do realise that? Right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

[madmacca]

Given the extremely limited range of wifi (~50 metres), this really is going to be limited to campgrounds (think Tidal River) and visitor centres.

It must really hurt to keep stabbing yourself with the thin end of the wedge on the slippery slope.

[GPSGuided]

So if the huts on the OLT had wi-fi people would be huddled around their screens, playing YouTube clips, sharing photos and videos etc...This would directly impact those around them. You do realise that? Right?

Or more likely, more are on their earbuds and stuck in their own world and not generate loud chit chats within the cabin and campground... Then each nods off to sleep till the next day quietly.

[north-north-west]

So if the huts on the OLT had wi-fi people would be huddled around their screens, playing YouTube clips, sharing photos and videos etc...This would directly impact those around them. You do realise that? Right?

Or more likely, more are on their earbuds and stuck in their own world and not generate loud chit chats within the cabin and campground... Then each nods off to sleep till the next day quietly.

Oh, yeah, sure, 'cause that's what the iGen does. I see it all the time.

[GPSGuided]

Oh, yeah, sure, 'cause that's what the iGen does. I see it all the time.

These days, I am seeing more of the senior generation stuck on their i-devices... Muttering to themselves.

Come to think of it, might just be the "thing" to rejuvenate the bushwalking fraternity!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8399

[Hallu]

It's a very expensive process, probably available only in major campgrounds in Canada or near visitor centres. No way this could work in Australia, better to have unlimited data for mobile phone plans, as you get reception in quite a number of campgrounds around Australia (for example you have reception at Mutawintji, or almost all around the Grampians) and make that reception better. It would help prevent accidents too, as most of them happen to young unprepared tourists who don't have PLBs but you can bet they have smartphones...

[stepbystep]

I've actually put a bit of thought into this and see the intrusion of devices as being inevitable as mobile coverage gets better. We might find that PWS services actually go the opposite way and employ the use of signal shields for the common area of huts...it is of course in theirs and tourism bodies interests for people to wax lyrical amongst their networks about their life changing experience as it's happening, of course the flipside is if punters are unhappy with track conditions/facilities etc...there is also much potential for interps projects with such connectivity...

[Lophophaps]

Oh, yeah, sure, 'cause that's what the iGen does. I see it all the time.

These days, I am seeing more of the senior generation stuck on their i-devices... Muttering to themselves.

I don't need technology to mutter to myself. It's a balance between attracting more people to our parks, not swamping the parks, and retaining the wild character. Having people in wild places retreat into their own little music or tech world is not what the bush is to me. Unfortunately, like NNW says, it's rather common. I've seen this on the OLT and nearby places, Koscuiszko NP, Feathertop and Bogong. One evening there was a beautiful sunset and a walker was immersed in his tech toy.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

I've actually put a bit of thought into this and see the intrusion of devices as being inevitable as mobile coverage gets better.

Yep I think the horse has bolted, and as you say, coverage will only increase (particularly as Telstra starts rolling out 4G in 700 MHz from next year onwards). But that doesn't mean it needs to be accelerated with hot spot deployments. It also has me thinking about infrastructure. Access points are useless without backhaul links to connect it to the web... are we going to start seeing microwave or satellite dishes on or around huts/campsites etc.? And that ignores the need for additional power.

As some have pointed out, it's a slippery slope, and given the abovementioned proliferation of mobile coverage, I don't think it's needed. Not in wild places anyway.

[Hallu]

As a physicist, I must mention that we know next to nothing on the influence of electromagnetic waves on plants and small animals. Wi-Fi hotspots specifically could be dangerous to small mammals. In Europe we have campaign ads to prevent young children from using mobile phones, as their cranial cavity is much smaller than adults', hence they're more sensitive to EM waves and could develop cancer in extreme cases. Small mammals, which are already the most endangered species in Australia, have tiny skulls and are even more sensitive than children.

A while back, some US military scientists realized that high voltage power lines would speed up the growth of nearby trees by as much as 30%. Farmers also noticed strange behaviours from their livestock when grazing near those power lines.

Modern society has us bathing daily in a soup of EM waves of different sorts. Radiowaves are harmless, because they have both low energy and high wavelength. But Wi-Fi and mobile signals have lower wavelength (in order to be picked up by a small receptor), and much higher energy (to paliate for their low wavelength which prevent them from going through thick objects). I would hope we'll prevent this treatment to our wilderness.

[GPSGuided]

As a physicist, I must mention that we know next to nothing on the influence of electromagnetic waves on plants and small animals. Wi-Fi hotspots specifically could be dangerous to small mammals. In Europe we have campaign ads to prevent young children from using mobile phones, as their cranial cavity is much smaller than adults', hence they're more sensitive to EM waves and could develop cancer in extreme cases. Small mammals, which are already the most endangered species in Australia, have tiny skulls and are even more sensitive than children...

I understand the maximum legal transmitting power for Wifi here in Australia is 4000mW and most consumer and many commercial deployments are well within the 500-1000mW range. The theoretical concern with the EMF effect on juvenile brains was not so much the size of cranium but the fact they are still growing and maturing. The proof is still quite tenuous. It's far surer to develop various forms of skin cancer through regular sun exposure than wifi EMF exposure.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

It's true that the effects of EMR on human/animal tissue aren't well defined, but that's more to do with a lack of understanding of the absorption rate of the affected matter rather than a lack of knowledge about the EMR itself. Hallu is right that mobile (base stations) transmit at a high power (which itself varies, depending on frequency band and whether dimensioned for coverage or capacity), but WiFi doesn't, which is what's being discussed here. And the propagation loss over distance at 2.4 and (in particular) 5/5.8 GHz is huge - basically what I'm saying is that the power flux density due to WiFi incident on any nearby living things would be less than bugger all (inverse square law for far-field RF and all that). The issues with RF affecting humans (and animals by extension) are more to do with exposure to much higher PFDs (eg. 2 Watts at 1800MHz in a phone right next to your head) and even that isn't proven, so I think EMR would be a long way down the list in terms of issues to consider when debating WiFi in huts etc.

That said (and as per my post above), I agree that WiFi in the wilderness is a step too far, but for a different set of reasons.

[icefest]

As a physicist, I must mention that we know next to nothing on the influence of electromagnetic waves on plants and small animals. Wi-Fi hotspots specifically could be dangerous to small mammals. In Europe we have campaign ads to prevent young children from using mobile phones, as their cranial cavity is much smaller than adults', hence they're more sensitive to EM waves and could develop cancer in extreme cases. Small mammals, which are already the most endangered species in Australia, have tiny skulls and are even more sensitive than children.

A while back, some US military scientists realized that high voltage power lines would speed up the growth of nearby trees by as much as 30%. Farmers also noticed strange behaviours from their livestock when grazing near those power lines.

Modern society has us bathing daily in a soup of EM waves of different sorts. Radiowaves are harmless, because they have both low energy and high wavelength. But Wi-Fi and mobile signals have lower wavelength (in order to be picked up by a small receptor), and much higher energy (to paliate for their low wavelength which prevent them from going through thick objects). I would hope we'll prevent this treatment to our wilderness.

Infant head circumference at birth is 35cm, after one year 45cm and when mature is 55cm. Most of the growth happens in the first few years. The issue is more that the brain has not fully developed physically until 2 years after birth; and that the higher rate of cellular turnover increases sensitivity to radiation injury.

[Hallu]

The studies of the physical effects of those waves on water are still controversial, some scientists saw it was changing the chemical bounds of molecules dissolved naturally in water. Understanding water is the first step towards understanding biological cells, and we don't even have that. So the studies are limited to population monitoring, checking if the ones living on spots of maximum exposure develop medical problems, or testing exposure on mice, monkeys etc... I agree of course that Wi-Fi isn't the main problem, altough public hotspots are much more powerful that home-WiFis. With 3G, 4G and now 5G, the power of the mobile signal keeps increasing, and I find it quite alarming. Sure there are more dangerous things out there (air pollution for example), but it''s way easier to solve the mobile problem : share the network between providers, use several low power antennas instead of one powerful one.

[GPSGuided]

The topic here is Wifi in NP and I am not aware of any who lives permanently in a department owned wilderness hut. Most go home to get their daily dose of home Wifi radiation exposure. At this stage I don't think anyone is talking about building cellular phone towers. So it's all cool. The only question is whether people want to allow others to use their Wifi capable devices to access the Internet.

[skog]

My opinion to the OP is that I hope we don't get wifi in N'S as I go into the bush to get away from technology and as a father with 2 young boys who live and are schooled in the iage we use this time to explore and use other skills and not sit there surfing the net.
But if the time comes when wifi is available I won't be using it and I hope people sharing a park or a hut with you show respect to other users.

Steve

[GPSGuided]

My opinion to the OP is that I hope we don't get wifi in N'S as I go into the bush to get away from technology and as a father with 2 young boys who live and are schooled in the iage we use this time to explore and use other skills and not sit there surfing the net.

If that's your angle, then being the father, just don't bring your/their smartphone, tablet or laptop. Problem solved. So is there an alternate reason why you want to stop others from accessing the service? Do you get offended when strangers are sitting in a corner and quietly using their smartphone?

[skog]

I don't take them with us now GPS Guided, and wouldn't moving forward. If you want to sit in the corner and quietly use your smartphone, all the best But if they are using them with the volume cranked then that is when I have an issue and courtesy needs to be shown, which sadly is something that is rare these days.

[GPSGuided]

... But if they are using them with the volume cranked then that is when I have an issue and courtesy needs to be shown, which sadly is something that is rare these days.

I agree that generating unnecessary noise is unacceptable. That's a behavioural issue that's quite separate to Wifi. Fact is, people can use and play noisy games on their smartphone/tablets without Wifi. Again, Wifi availability is not a factor in that scenario. Keyboard noise maybe more prevalent when there's Wifi as people try to send and receive messages. Not too intrusive in my mind.

[skog]

If are NP are made wifi hotspots so be it, all my concern is that users take into consideration other people. One of the big drawcards for me when visiting NP's or any bush is to get away from technology. I have enough of my phone consistently notifying me when I am at work.

But I know plenty of other people who would love to have wifi, and that may lead to more people visiting NP'S and then better infrastructure is built which benefits all of us.

[stepbystep]

It's a broader issue. A social problem. People don't talk or interact. They rarely acknowledge each other's existence in the real world. Their noses are buried in their devices and their acknowledgement and approval is sought by their 'like rate'. "I must be seen or I don't exist"

What comes back time and again from OLT punters is the friendship and comradery, the bonds they form sharing stories of an evening over a hot chocolate in the huts. I think it will be a sad loss if wifi were installed in those huts(not that it's been proposed). It's part of the culture of that walk that would quickly disappear.

I do see benefits but they are not based on notions of idealism, which is where we should start these discussions imho…

[Empty]

I'm definelty in stepbysteps camp on this one. And as far the comment of wifi encouraging more people to enter parks leading to more infrastructure I see this as a definite downside. I'm looking for a wilderness experience when I enter the bush. If I want infrastructure I can go to Melbourne.

More radio towers, more formed tracks, more pit toilets, more designated camping spots, more signs telling me what I can't do, more soiled toilet paper littering the bush - NO THANKS.

For those wanting a more technological experience of the the wild, Banjo Patterson may have summed it up thus:

" you had better stick to Sydney and make merry with the push,
because the bush will never suit you and you'll never suit the bush"

[north-north-west]

" you had better stick to Sydney and make merry with the push,
because the bush will never suit you and you'll never suit the bush"

Yerrr, he got it right, didn't he: " . . and it makes us grieve to hear
That it wasn't cool and shady, and there wasn't whips of beer . . ."

That's what we need rather than WiFi - a bottleshop in the corner of every hut, with chilled boutique brews for all and sundry.
(Isn't it?)

[GPSGuided]

No wonder bushwalking clubs around the country are aging faster than the general population. The there's still satellite phones for those who can afford it. At the end of the day, the mentality here appears to be one of not letting others receive a convenience than personally not needing such a service. Must remember that NPs are supported by us all.

[Empty]

That's what we need rather than WiFi - a bottleshop in the corner of every hut, with chilled boutique brews for all and sundry.
(Isn't it?)

Ye that's what we need along with some good bush poetry and a nice game of charades to get everyone involved. Imagine if we could carry a pianola along? Wouldn't that be grand?

" Roll out the Wifi
Well have a barrel of fun
Sitting on my lonesome
I'll get chilblains on my bum
Zing, boom tararrel,
We'll sing a song of good cheer
Now that every parks got Wifi
No need for the gang -to -be- hereeeeeeee"