Conflicted

I was reading this post on UpNorthica about providing wireless internet in state parks. Apparently this is nothing new across the U.S., but the first of Minnesota's state parks is trying it out through the end of the year, to see if it draws more visitors.

I am a bit conflicted about this (but mostly opposed, as you can see by my comment on the original post). I can see that we are headed toward a wireless, always accessible culture, and it may bring some people into the parks who are otherwise are deterred by the lack of internet access. I know state parks need money, and more visitors = more money (Minnesota state parks charge an entrance fee).

However, I personally use my vacation time to TAKE A VACATION. I use the internet a lot, for work and at home (as evidenced by this blog). But there are certain times when you just need to get away and focus on something other than a screen. Really, the only way to get people to do that is to make it so the internet is not available. I agree that people enjoy campgrounds in different ways...some from the convenience of an air-conditioned camper with a DVD player, and others in back country tents with no water or electricity. I myself fall somewhere in between, and have enjoyed the convenience of my parent's camper from time to time. But do we really need people to know they can reach us all day, any day? Even when we're on vacation, or enjoying a hike with our families on a Sunday afternoon?

It's bad enough that cellular reception is becoming better in remote areas...I am conflicted about that too, as it has definitely saved some lives, but is also the most annoying thing EVER to be taking a quiet, relaxing walk on a trail and catch up with someone walking and TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONE. What is the point?

What do you think?