AccessParks, a broadband company that specializes in bringing the internet to remote places, wants to bring WiFi to more areas in more national parks. They already perform this service for US military bases and now they’ve set their sights on greatly expanding wifi service in Yellowstone National Park. AccessParks, along with concessionaire Xanterra Parks & Resorts, hopes to install high-speed internet service in hundreds of park buildings and popular attractions in Yellowstone. They’ve submitted a proposal to the National Park Service, which requested public comment on the plan a few weeks back—that public comment period ends tomorrow, and you can have your say here.
“We believe that by addressing the need for predictable, quality internet in remote lodging, RV parks, and campgrounds, we are helping more people experience the outdoors we love, for longer periods of time, and with the untethered freedom of exploring confidently,” AccessParks says on their website. “The outdoors should be a part of everyone’s life, especially younger generations. When parents can keep up with work for an hour in the evening, the kids benefit from longer stays.”
Would More Internet Benefit National Park Visitors?
The company argues that having internet connectivity at national parks would mean longer, more restorative stays for visitors since they wouldn’t have to leave to deal with issues back home that could be handled over WiFi, a greater wealth of instant information about park features and wildlife, and safety in the form of hiking maps, weather and fire conditions, as well as 911 call availability in the frontcountry.
Bringing that level of connectivity to Yellowstone would mean the construction of five microwave antenna stations, several backcountry repeater stations, a dozen wireless antennae spaced throughout the park, and hundreds of wireless transceivers fixed to buildings. The system would blanket Canyon Village, Grant Village, Lake, Mammoth Hot Springs, and Old Faithful.
Many of the buildings slated to have the transceivers installed are either already listed in the National Register of Historic Places or are eligible for inclusion; AccessParks suggests they’re more than capable of installing the equipment without harming the unique character of the park’s buildings. As for the installation of towers and other infrastructure harming the park, AccessPArks says: “We have 13 years of experience solving the hardest connectivity problems in the world, with extreme sensitivity to environmental impact.”
Interestingly, the NPS reports that, assuming a successful rollout, the system could be expanded to more NPS properties. “We anticipate that the installation will be expanded in the future to offer the same service to the NPS and other concessioners,” the NPS said in a statement.
Again, should you wish to weigh in on the addition of broadband to Yellowstone, you have until Tuesday, November 12, at 11:59 pm MT.
Is AccessParks right? Would you be more inclined to spend extended periods in national parks if they had better internet?
As an incentive for conversation, we’re giving away a copy of Adventure Journal to one commenter chosen at random. You can choose any issue we have in stock, and if you’re already a subscriber we can extend your sub by an issue, send you an issue you don’t have, or give one to a friend. Just include your email when you post your comment so we can get in touch.
Top photo: NPS
This would obviously put way more people on there phones at the parks and I think that would take away from the experience of people not on their phones. Keep wild places wild and free of wifi.
I go to National Parks to unplug and get away.
Why not pave it? Maybe a burger joint and a Walmart would boost profits.
I think they should rebrand and think about sponsors, NASCAR could put an oval out there.
WiFi can help the visitor imagine themselves actually experiencing the park, while they are there.
Sounds like a pot stand would make you happy too.
I’m surprised we haven’t logged it yet to make way for a new Dollar store……
The whole point of going into nature is to unplug, so unplug already! Enjoy your surroundings, inhale and stop worrying about what is happening on social media. It will still be there — unfortunately — when you come down.
I’m torn. Plus, there’s the whole Darwinism aspect as people look at the phones and walk into precarious situations.
Can you imagine hearing a phone ring in the wilderness? Ouch! For the few times I can see why wifi access would be helpful, I can envision a dozen times it would be a detriment. Put your phone down and gaze into the geyser, canyon, cliff face or night sky and enjoy life.
It is ultimately quite easy to unplug, regardless of access. You either use airplane mode or just turn your devices off.
Wait — our phones have off buttons? 🙂
It’s the collective unplugging that matters – if fellow visitors continue to stare at their little black boxes, it will degrade my experience as well. I’d love to hear what Ed Abbey or Aldo would have to say as this is well beyond paving roads through our valued spaces.
It is a sad state of affairs, when there is this incessant need to keep providing wifi everywhere.
Being unplugged is nice, until you are way out on a road or trail and there’s no cell service and you need help. Sometimes, just knowing where you are makes a big difference.
If you’re concerned about safety, get something like an inReach. Otherwise enjoy nature and unplug.
Gotta get those selfies uploaded as fast as possible.
Service to call 9-1-1? Get an InReach. Pretty smooth of them to focus on the possibility of taking care of a work issue real quick, allowing for a longer stay. I wonder what percentage of the WiFi usage will be specifically for that, and what percentage would be for instagram
I think many did not read the proposal which is for blanket WiFi in developed areas. When traveling alone, I really appreciate being connected to my family
This will only negatively affect you if you allow it. I’m not saying that I’m for it – I’m not – but at the end of the day it’s up to me to find solitude and I trust myself to do just that.
I’d like to see National Parks trending back toward more wild and not less.
Definitely not wanting this. We already have people in trailers with generators, AC, satellite tv etc … do not need/want any of that in a park.
Having never visited Yellowstone and also hearing of all the bad behavior by my fellow humans; this move just seems to encourage more bad behavior. It encourages and emboldens absent-mindedness from people glued to their electronic devices and firmly puts the nail in the coffin that I will not likely ever visit YNP.
Here’s the thing. Employees and Park Staff absolutely NEED to be able to be connected. Forget about life/death situations… I’m talking about morale and professional contentment. Staffing is a challenge and nobody on this thread would argue that the parks can just run themselves. If you read the quotes from YELL Superintendent, it’s clear this is the focus. Anyone on here, try to have your primary domicile be Internet-free for 3months and then come back and comment. If it has to be available to visitors, the fee should be extremely high. 90% won’t use it and therefore we won’t have the same feeling as being in a crowded mall where people don’t look up, but there’s still access for the use-cases that matter.
Domicile has been internet free for over 7 years.
I get all the internet and connectivity I need at work thanks.
Good for you, Ted. That is impressive. The thing here is that NPS and Concessioner employees do not even get it at work.
There are a million jobs out there. No one has to be a Park Ranger. Having worked for California State Parks I will say connectivity was never available to me as part of the job and it wasn’t an issue. I wanted the job because I love the outdoors.
Need the internet 24/7/365? An outdoor recreation gig probably aint’ for you buddy..
Then the NPS should provide a secure and staff-only WiFi service that is not accessible and hidden from park attendees devices.
Yellowstone is not an amusement park. You cannot experience a national park with your face glued to your phone
“Bringing that level of connectivity to Yellowstone would mean the construction of five microwave antenna stations, several backcountry repeater stations, a dozen wireless antennae spaced throughout the park, and hundreds of wireless transceivers fixed to buildings”
You’d have to imagine this would have some sort of impact on wildlife, no?
To add, as I mentioned in a previous comment, I don’t think this will affect my experience. In the bigger picture, however, it sure is mind-boggling that we act like we can’t survive or it’s such a horror to imagine spending some time ‘disconnected.’ Widespread internet is, what, 20 years old? People seemed to do just fine before it – perhaps even better.
How about we require people to leave their devices at home, or have to lock them in a storage locker until they leave the Park instead.
why even go outside? you could download a cool app that gives you that “outdoor” experience and just live it via your phone. 🙂
I like the point when embarking on an outdoor trip that I lose cell signal. It creates a separation from my everyday life to my upcoming adventure.
So, people here don’t even want wifi installed in the lodges? What’s so back-to-nature about staying in a lodge that people are paying hundreds of dollars a night for, with soft beds, hot water, full restaurants, etc? Is a lodge a wild place?
Other than lodges? No wifi.
I deem that providing wi-fi across the park will only encourage visitors to come for the wrong reason, and very few for the enjoyment of nature.
While the selfie phenomenon is bad enough as is, being able to upload right there and then to Instacrap would only make things worse.
Countless medical researches are advocating for time away from screens: make this and other natural places oases for mental health.
I’m really enjoying reading about the horrors of connectivity in an online forum.
Does the word Context even mean anything to your obtuse statement? Debating the pros and cons of WiFi availability in wilderness in a forum such as this is in no way equitable to dodging the digital zombies in that wilderness that literally cannot put their devices down long enough to even appreciate that which surrounds them.
A. It was a joke – I’m not always as funny as I think I am.
B. They are talking about putting Wifi at Old Faithful, Mammoth Hot Springs, and at the gorge. I was at Yellowstone recently and I wouldn’t call those places wilderness. I can assure you that people were taking selfies even without wifi.
C. How about the obtuse context of the people who live and work in the park and the people staying in the various lodges being able to participate in this very discussion?
D. If they install wifi, I don’t think you will be REQUIRED to use it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a big proponent, but I guess I’m not a big opponent either. I have no interest in walking around the park while online, but at the same time, If I’m eating lunch in the lodge or spending the night, I can see myself logging in and seeing what’s going on back home. I’m not going to be bothered if it’s there, or if it’s not there.
I work tangentially to the telecom industry and often attend conferences with professionals from that and the IT/Networked side of the public Utilities. If they wanted to provide WiFi to the staff and seasonal employees of those parks and not make it publicly visible/available; that’s an easy task and just requires some detailed design of the network for security purposes.
That said… give any corporation or industry an inch of space in a new environment and they will throw nearly unlimited resources at taking miles and miles more through lobbying, sitting on legislative committees, appealing to the public fear of being “unsafe” due to lack of connection to the outside world, etc… if ever there were a scenario of Pandora’s Box; this would be it.
Once opened and unleashed; there’s no going back and it will creep out into the pristine beauty of the wild like a virus…