What's the Deal With Poor Pinkham Notch Cell Service?

[Driver8]

It wasn't more than 5 years ago, that I was arguing that the proliferation of cell phone use was destroying the sense of wildness that some of us seek by walking the hills and forests. I was told I was paranoid, that no one ever used a cell phone in front of others. It was just a safety device buried deep in their packs.

For what it's worth. I oppose any extension of cell phone use, regardless of how cheap it might be.

Now here is a forthright reply. Much appreciated, weary. Though you and I disagree on this, I very much appreciate your candor and courtesy. I understand cell phones on trail are an issue which get people hot under the collar, and I share many of those concerns. I like it very much when people discuss such a hot topic in the reasonable, straightforward, honest and respectful way you have. Not everyone has such good grace.

[tdoczi]

Why aren't you reading posts to which you reply with pointed questions answered in those original posts? That, too, is an annoyance. Give a thorough read to the OP and get back to me - I think you'll approve of my cell phone usage in this instance - and try not to hector people without first doing the most minimal homework, if you kindly could, thanks.

point taken about reading, however, i almost never approve of cell phone usage : ) at the risk of getting sidetracked this too is why cell phones are a detriment. theyve instill in most people this bothersome need to keep checking in and be in constant contact. all 3 of your parties i'm sure were just fine. you didnt need to call them, but being used to the constant ability to do so has made you go all wiggy when you can not.

any device that instills this sort of insecurity in people is not worth having in my book.

[Driver8]

all 3 of your parties i'm sure were just fine. you didnt need to call them, but being used to the constant ability to do so has made you go all wiggy when you can not.

You're within your rights to pass judgment as you choose and to be annoyed at what you will. Just know that I had to turn back just over halfway up, so the other parties wanted to make sure I was OK and specifically asked me to check in, so I did. There was no one within a quarter mile at the time on Boott Spur on a Tuesday, so only the insects, frogs and birds would have been momentarily disturbed. You can quickly infer, with application of common sense, why it would be very useful for me to know when my partners were returning - dinner plans, etc. Also, a couple members of the "other three" I mention were around 70. Concern for their well-being and curiosity about their progress, given that one of them expressed a lot of doubt about the difficulty of the effort, was well within reason.

If you think cell phones are a detriment, that is your right, which I respect. I hope you respect that I and the great lion's share of people disagree with you. I won't, however, hector you or judge you harshly on that basis.

[tdoczi]

well then you will kindly respect AMC's and or NFS's decision to not worry about having cell service at pinkham notch and stop acting like you have a right to it.

[Driver8]

well then you will kindly respect AMC's and or NFS's decision to not worry about having cell service at pinkham notch and stop acting like you have a right to it.

You assume facts not in evidence. You don't know, nor do I, AMC's decision or lack thereof in the matter, or USFS's for that matter. I'm curious enough to investigate further than the shooting gallery this thread has become and am doing so. If I find anything interesting and relevant, and if I feel like it, I'll report it.

I have every right to respectfully register my concerns about this issue here, and I appreciate courteous responses. I don't expect them, however - would be unreasonable.

[hikerboy57]

driver8. the problem many are having here is entitlement issues.and every year there are a few stories about pepole who use their cell phones to call for help,and put many people in danger when they simply used poor judgement.when its too easy, people get sloppy and rely totally on a tool that may fail when they need it most..and many go to the woods to get away from all the nonsense.I and many others do NOT want to perpetuate cell phone use in the wild.

[Driver8]

driver8. the problem many are having here is entitlement issues.

I think the problem here, hikerboy, is that many of the respondents here both are hostile to extension of cell phone service into the mountains, without exception, and take it personally, donning an attacking attitude toward those who disagree. I appreciate those, such as weary and yourself, who disagree with me, even intensely, and yet express their disagreement civilly. I'd love to see that more common in our country today.

[hikerboy57]

I'd love to see that more common in our country today.
rudeness is also an entitlement issue today. But I think part of it stems from anger over rescues that didnt need to be made which put other lives at risk.
Someone once told me never to argue with an idiot, its hard to tell the difference.so try not to get too defensive. I undertand you're point, but the consensus here is its not a good idea, one i agree with.

[tdoczi]

You assume facts not in evidence. You don't know, nor do I, AMC's decision or lack thereof in the matter, or USFS's for that matter. I'm curious enough to investigate further than the shooting gallery this thread has become and am doing so. If I find anything interesting and relevant, and if I feel like it, I'll report it.

I have every right to respectfully register my concerns about this issue here, and I appreciate courteous responses. I don't expect them, however - would be unreasonable.

youre correct, technically. i have assumed that this is a conscious decision and not just a case of "oops, we never thought to put cell coverage in pinkham notch."

it may be financially motivated, it may be a wildnerness purity thing, but what it is not, i am fairly comfortable assuiming, is accidental. i guess my point is that whether its AMC or the USFS or the cell phone carriers, its their business. its the expectation that their should be cell service just because youd like their to be that i find offensive. its simply not your place (nor mine, i dont go around telling anyone to NOT have a cell phone or service).

[Driver8]

But I think part of it stems from anger over rescues that didnt need to be made which put other lives at risk.

Many avid hikers enjoy the wilderness as an escape from other people. My motivation, also shared by many, is more one of enjoying the beauty of the outdoors, as well as the exercise and the challenge. The former group hate cell phones because it is more social than is comfortable for them, means more people on trail and the like, and the idea of cell phone service, and thus usage, being further extended into the wilderness is, to them, an obscenity, full stop.

I think the security blanket issue you raise is legitimate, but I think the desire for solitude, for isolation from civilization is the bigger one for most here.

[Driver8]

i guess my point is that whether its AMC or the USFS or the cell phone carriers, its their business. its the expectation that their should be cell service just because youd like their to be that i find offensive. its simply not your place (nor mine, i dont go around telling anyone to NOT have a cell phone or service).

The USFS is a government agency, and I am a taxpayer. Also, I recently hiked out there. Their functioning is my business every bit as much as it is yours to come and disagree with my opinion. For instance, the young man who works for the USFS who walked with me the final 0.4 back down to Pinkham told me all about the repairs and improvements under way to the Tuckerman Ravine Trail - his courtesy and forthcoming were not just good manners, he understands that I not only am a constituent as a taxpayer, I am a user and therefore especially interested. If I had known about the lack of cell service while walking with him (I discovered it shortly after we parted ways), I'm sure, as smart and well-informed as he is, that he would have happily fielded my questions about the topic, too.

The AMC, meanwhile, is under contract to the USFS, which owns most of the land out there. AMC is a private membership organization, true, but its contractual relationship with the government, here, is of interest to you and to me and to all taxpayers. Very much our place to ask questions.

You attribute to me thinking, again, not in evidence and, more to the point, not in my head. I have not set forth some whimsical, "By golly, I want this thing (cell service) and dammit I expect it therefore to happen!" That's petulant foolishness - you are, to be direct about it, intemperate and irrational to attribute that mindset to me when it's neither there nor in evidence.

What is there is my strongly held and stated view which disagrees with yours. If you cannot respect me in that and extend the common courtesy not to misread or over-read my motives, well, I can't help you with that problem. But I can and will correct the record when you misstate or mischaracterize what I say or intend.

[nufsaid]

Anyone want to pool money to make this happen?

I notice that nobody had the courtesy to respond to your question. Mark me down as a no vote. I agree that there are lots of major inconveniences to be found that could have safety consequences. Right now I would vote for aid stations with ice water and an air conditioned lounge every 8 to ten miles. Shouldn't be that expensive since it would really only be needed in some states, and for a relatively narrow window of time.

[Driver8]

I notice that nobody had the courtesy to respond to your question. Mark me down as a no vote. I agree that there are lots of major inconveniences to be found that could have safety consequences. Right now I would vote for aid stations with ice water and an air conditioned lounge every 8 to ten miles. Shouldn't be that expensive since it would really only be needed in some states, and for a relatively narrow window of time.

Thanks for your response, nuf. That was more of a one-off jest.

[nothermark]

A serious, substantive reply. Thanks!

Who says it's not economically feasible to provide service into the Notch? It'a possible to put smaller repeater tramsitters in place atop existing structures, one at the busy, well-developed summit and one at Pinkham.

Of course it's mountain country, but it is also very heavily used, and such minor additions would be major aids to health and safety in a dangerous place. We, as a group, didn't expect crystal clear service in all spots on the mountainsides out there, but to ask for decent service in Pinkham doesn't seem like so much - not as costly or obstrusive as some might think - nor does it to have a small transmitter put in place on the summit grounds, given all the activity and structures up there.

Can you guarantee several thousand calls per day 365 days a year? Do that and the phone company might be interested.

[tdoczi]

I notice that nobody had the courtesy to respond to your question. Mark me down as a no vote. I agree that there are lots of major inconveniences to be found that could have safety consequences. Right now I would vote for aid stations with ice water and an air conditioned lounge every 8 to ten miles. Shouldn't be that expensive since it would really only be needed in some states, and for a relatively narrow window of time.

put me down for no as well.

[AaronMB]

You assume facts not in evidence.

...The former group hate cell phones because it is more social than is comfortable for them, means more people on trail and the like, and the idea of cell phone service, and thus usage, being further extended into the wilderness is, to them, an obscenity, full stop...

I--that former group--would rather not see cell phone use on the trails because, as suggested, it can perpetuate the security blanket issue. With all respect, your situation is an appropriate example (especially considering there were three in your party that "were around 70" whose "well being" raised your concern). You may have verbally made a Plan B, just in case cellular service was unavailable, but you did not state that here.
So, in my perspective, the issue is: why plan something, along with an appropriate contingency plan, when one can simply use the phone? It's fortunate, in this case, that those persons in your party that had your concern were OK.
If you had known that there would not be cellular coverage, would you still have decided to split up and not discuss a back-up plan (assuming you did not)?


People, in general, are social creatures and as we become accustomed to that e-device in our pockets, we want to take it with us. That's fine. Hike Your Own Hike. But when that device becomes a replacement for planning (be it research regarding the next resupply town, or the verbal Plan B that is made when the group splits up and decides to meet at a specified location at or around a specified time, along with a Plan C if Plan B doesn't happen), that device can become a hazard for more than just the unprepared user. That, for me, is the issue.

[tdoczi]

The USFS is a government agency, and I am a taxpayer.

the mission of the USFS is far more involved than making hikers happy. by all means though, take it up with them. organizing a half baked rally to try and "fix" it for them though...?

notice how much enthusiastic support youve gotten.

[Silverstone]

Oh man... You had to turn back because you couldn't get in touch with another section of your group?

Serious bummer, man. But that right there is the problem, see, if y'all would've stuck together, this wouldn't have been an issue. I mean, Lewis and Clark, like, almost *never* separated on their expedition out west, and cell phone coverage wasn't an issue for them.

Oh, and remember, when the Brady Bunch went to the amusement park and they lost Mr. Brady's plans? No cell coverage there either, which led to all kinds of shenanigans and mix-ups, so I kinda see your point.

Sorry for coming off so snarky, but re-reading the OP, I just can't help but face-palm at the sense of entitlement that oozes from it.

Again, sorry that I have nothing to offer but a dumbfounded ***? look on my face.

[hikerboy57]

lewis and clark did separate for several weeks during their expedition, and found each other without the use of cell phones.

[restless]

Before I comment on this issue, a few background notes. First of all, I used to work for AMC and was based out of Pinkham Notch, and am also a Verizon customer, so I am well aware of the lack of cell phone service and the inconvienance it causes for the employees. Second, I work for the NPS and have seen first hand the problem of readily accessible cell phone service in a wilderness environment. People use cell phones to get them out of situations brought on by their lack of stupidity. Our LEO's here are kept busy during the summer months responding to calls from people who are not prepared for wilderness conditions.
I echo the sentiments of a majority of people on this issue and would rather not see cell service in the Notch. I believe it destroys the wilderness values that we seek to achieve by going into the woods. I have been behind people carrying on a rather loud and long conversation on a phone while going up a trail; she did have a phone, she did not carry any water. Not everyone who hikes shares the same wilderness values that a majority of people here do. As to the affordability of it, I doubt that the USFS would put one in, given the current budget situation. The USFS, like the NPS, faces a large backlog of projects due to a shrinking budget and services and facilities are being reduced and/or closed in an effort to save money. So I am fairly sure that providing cell phone service to this area is not a high priority. So that leaves AMC. Given the attitude that I have seen in AMC members, who sense of entitlement runs deeper than any hiker I have come across, I am surprised that AMC has not provided this service. They have the money although, like other non-profits, they are seeing a drop in income as well. If this is such a passionate issue to you, rather than becoming defensive over peoples lack of enthusiasm with the subject, perhaps you could finance the installation of this service. There are people who would be grateful, with perhaps the exception of those who have to go out because Aunt Edna just ran out of water and was getting hot. (That is not an exaggeration, I know of a rescue involving 8 Park personnel over that very reason. Cost to the person we had to go take water to and walk out -$0.00. Cost to the taxpayer-about $3000 in manpower.)
I hope I have not come across as offensive. If I have, get a grip on reality. If you want cell phone service wherever you go, stay out of the woods.