Icelanders Seek To Keep Remote Nordic Peninsula Digital-Free (apnews.com)

Hikers, park rangers, and summer residents of Iceland's northernmost peninsula are seeking to keep the area free from internet service, worrying that all that comes with it "will destroy a way of life that depends on the absence of [email, news, and social media]," reports the Associated Press. "The area has long resisted cell towers, but commercial initiatives could take the decision out of Icelanders' hands and push Hornstrandir across the digital divide." From the report: Despite or because of its remoteness, Iceland ranks first on a U.N. index comparing nations by information technology use, with roughly 98 percent of the population using the internet. Among adults, 93 percent report having Facebook accounts and two-thirds are Snapchat users, according to pollster MMR. Many people who live in northwestern Iceland or visit as outdoor enthusiasts want Hornstrandir's 570 square kilometers (220 square miles), which accounts for 0.6 percent of Iceland's land mass, to be declared a "digital-free zone." The idea hasn't coalesced into a petition or formal campaign, so what it would require or prohibit hasn't been fleshed out. The last full-time resident of the rugged area moved away in 1952 -- it never was an easy place to farm -- but many descendants have turned family farmsteads into summer getaways. Northwest Iceland's representative, Halla Signy Kristjansdottir, is in favor of adding cell towers for the safety of sailors and travelers in the area. "I don't see anything romantic about lying on the ground with a broken thigh bone and no cellphone signal," Kristjansdottir said in an interview.

Comments

Yeah it's real annoying

[Crashmarik]

You're out in the wilderness and somebody's WiFi is screwing up the colors of the forest and making everything look strange, while the cell towers are driving the wildlife nuts. / sarcasm

I'd love to hear these people justify how this in anyway diminishes them.

Re:Yeah it's real annoying

[Rei]

Forest? *snicker*. Here's the joke everyone over the age of 8 here knows:

Q: What do you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest?
A: Stand up.

I've actually not been to Hornstrandir; it's been on my TODO list for a long, long time, but I've lacked one of the obligatory "round tuits". So it's actually surprising to hear that there's not internet access (via cell towers) there, because in general even the most remote places here have cell access. When Bárðarbunga erupted, deep in the highlands, the eruption was livestreamed. And there's a lot more people in Vestfirðir then in the highlands!

This would of course be more about visitors than residents, given that there's no permanent residents in Hornstrandir. And in some ways I can sympathize. For example, there's always a lot of opposition to improving the highland roads because we don't want to have more cars driving through and tons of people flooding in, and driving really fast on some paved road would totally change the experience of going into the highlands... it would just turn into a set of "sites to see" rather than a journey. The effect of the isolation on you can really be profound. You feel like a person exploring Mars - so tiny in an endless empty expanse, completely devoid of any signs of human civilization except the half-bulldozed-out "road" you take, the endless travel punctured by rushes of adrenaline as you try to ford a river or trying to avoid ruining your car crossing a lava field. And people who know that experience generally don't want to see it altered. So I imagine it's the same thing for Hornstrandir. The difference being, as previously mentioned, in much of the highlands there's cell coverage. At least as far as I know, when I go out I'm not checking Facebook all the time. ;) But I don't recall any meaningful loss of coverage events.

ED: Just checked a map from my cell provider. Looks like most of Hornstrandir is indeed marked in white (no coverage), while most of the highlands is light blue (2G) or in some places blue (3G) - even a good chunk of Vatnajökull (largest glacier in Europe).

Re:Yeah it's real annoying

[e3m4n]

Actually this intrigues me. I go on cruises for the same getaway. Sure one can declare a weekend of no devices or technology, but theres always something that comes up that eventually screws that up. I go on cruises with the family and we do not buy the internet package. The fact that its ridiculously expensive helps 'cut the cord' when on vacation. The most online time the kids ever experience is when we pull into a port and visit a place that has 'free wifi'; giving them 30-60 min of checking their email and responding to messages. So out of 6 - 7 days, they get 3 hours tops of access. You never realize what a trap it is, until you're actually forced to go without. It seems so benign, so passive. How could the potential for access be such a bad thing? its what you do with it that's so bad right? Its a time thief. I challenge everyone to spend 72 hours without any sort of technology, not even garmin. Afterwards you might find yourself searching for vacations that help make the decision for you. Forcing yourself to go without technology of any sort, when its readily available, is much more difficult than going someplace where it is simply off-grid. These off-grid places are going to eventually become prime property commanding top dollar for the effects they have on the human psyche. Sometimes its a lot easier to unplug when the option is made for you, after you've signed up for the event, than it is to consciously say 'no' repeatedly, every time a new opportunity alerts you on the device.

The future of vacations in the 21st century are going to center around off-grind spots.
   

Re:Yeah it's real annoying

[GumphMaster]

You're out in the wilderness and somebody's ...

bloody mobile phone is playing something loosely called "music" over the shittiest, tinny piezoelectric "speaker" you ever heard. I have personally experienced this scenario while walking the Milford Track (NZ) and in Torres del Payne (Chile). I can only imagine how much worse it would be _with_ coverage: Youtube videos turned up to 11, incessant need to share the latest "news" from home, inattentive walking in dangerous places etc. If your region's livelihood depends on people coming to experience wilderness then this kind of behaviour is frankly detrimental to that. All power to the Icelanders for trying to keep a lid on it.

If safety is the primary concern then set up a PLB rental service for walkers.

Satellite Internet

[crow]

We may only be a few years away from Starlink or something similar providing practical high-bandwidth Internet service globally. So they may hold back the tide a bit longer, but the reality is that modern communications will become a fact of life everywhere for anyone that wants it. Yes, that will mean some significant changes to the lifestyles of the people living there, and yes, it won't all be for the better, but I don't see the point of fighting it now.

Re:Satellite Internet

[quenda]

Satellite coverage is always going to be a problem at the poles

No, that applies to geosynchronous broadcast satellites, but not to LEO constellations such as Starlink or Irridium.

Re:Satellite Internet

[crow]

Good point. A quick look at Google Maps suggests around 66 degrees north. I'm not the best a geography, and I had thought Iceland was a bit further south. I didn't realize it was north of the southern tip of Greenland. That could well be outside the range of satellite Internet, depending on the orbits involved. I have no idea what the plans are.

Re:Satellite Internet

[Mashiki]

Seem to remember there was active satellite links in Resolute, Nvt.(74deg/N), so I don't think that's a problem. The real problem was the astronomical cost of those links, short of a stationary polar orbit satellite there is no real way to keep it cheap. So they've been building fiber as a replacement since 2012ish for the far north remote communities at least here in Canada. I think Resolute was finished in 2016ish or so.

Because people no longer have self discipline?

[thesupraman]

Because they CAN get Farcebook, I guess they Must get Farcebook.
I mean, you would think they could just choose to turn off their devices, not bring a charger, whatever.

Although knowing people from such areas, I suspect it is more about giving one big finger to 'thems city folks' (even if most of these people live in the cit\y most of the time).

Anyway, good on them for caring, but good luck in keeping such things out. The safety point is also quite valid.

Re:Because people no longer have self discipline?

[ShanghaiBill]

I mean, you would think they could just choose to turn off their devices

They don't want to just stop using Facebook, they want their NEIGHBORS to stop using it too.

This isn't about self-control. It is about controlling others, which is a near universal human desire.

Re:Because people no longer have self discipline?

[e3m4n]

exactly. I just posted a more descriptive explanation of that very thing a thread above this one. Sometimes it's easier to buy a vacation that makes the choice for you, than having to, repeatedly, make the same choice throughout the entire vacation. Picking a destination that has no access means you can re-focus on other forms of entertainment. Its easy to fall back into habits. By picking a spot with no access, you are not fighting temptation, and i dare say withdrawal, the entire time. The price of vacationing in this spot will only increase now that its mandated technology-free.

Re:Because people no longer have self discipline?

[Joce640k]

"I don't see anything romantic about lying on the ground with a broken thigh bone and no cellphone signal," Kristjansdottir said in an interview.

So.... they could enable emergency services and nothing more?

Would that be too much like common sense?

Re:Because people no longer have self discipline?

[Kjella]

By picking a spot with no access, you are not fighting temptation, and i dare say withdrawal, the entire time.

You don't also have to justify the explicit decision to turn your cell phone off, it was just an implicit decision. If somebody was trying to reach you then "I was at my cabin, there's no coverage" that's kinda end of discussion. Doesn't matter if the server room was on fire, doesn't matter if your old man had a heart attack, doesn't matter if your kid was in a traffic accident. You weren't there but you had no way of being there, short of never ever going to your cabin. Hopefully that never happens but if it does then "I turned if off to get an Internet detox" is going to sound selfish, others may blame you and you might blame yourself for not being there.

That's the camel's nose in the tent, it's what makes it different from 25 years ago when I simply didn't have a cell phone. It was never an option, whenever I walked out the door away from the landline I was out of reach of my parents. And it all worked out quite okay for me and all my friends I would say, but you could of course imagine a situation where it didn't. Today parents would freak if they had to raise their kids 1980s style, almost every kid here has a cell phone because despite all the discussion on whether they should, what if the kid really needs to call home or 911? The extremes takes precedence over whether it's desirable on a normal day.

That's the hook, you have to stay connected although 99.9% of the time nothing really important happens. But you just have to take two seconds to check that it's not important, right? Even calls are not always important, like my parents don't write text messages so no matter if it's big or small they call. Maybe phones should have more than one call mode, like you have ordinary call and emergency call. And you could set emergency calls to have their own ring tone, ignore most normal silent settings and such. Then you could be reachable, but only if the caller really indicated it's urgent. And then slam telemarketers or anyone else trying to abuse it, like fake 911 calls level of punishment. Then "emergency only" could be a setting between what you have today and turning it off completely.

Fuck yes.

[DogDude]

Fuck yes, I fucking love Icelanders. I'm so sick of seeing smartphone zombies everywhere. The addicts and the stupid will be addicted and stupid anywhere there's an Internet connection. What a wonderful, thoughtful, human decision to make. Wonderful idea.

Re:Fuck yes.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

I don't see it as thoughtful or "human" at all. Simply reactionary.

As long as EVERYONE in that area agrees, fine.

Re: Luddites

[N1AK]

No they didn't. Even if you take the view that the original 'luddites' was in any way anti-technological rather than machines being easy targets for people unhappy with general conditions, then the group were widely understood to oppose the implementation of technology that increased productivity and the perceived negative impact on their incomes. It's ridiculous to claim that supporting or opposing luddites is a required characteristic to be a geek.