Article paints an unnecessarily gloom and doom picture of the future of false alarms from rescue devices. The vast majority of them come because of the lack of two-way communication, which in the future, will become more standard. They should have articulated this, because two-way communication obviously makes a HUGE difference if a rescuer can ascertain the nature of the emergency, or especially, if there really is one.
What you say about the ability of two way communication is true. The problem today is that we have had two way comms available for years but not at a mass market price point. There are fine standard effective satellite phones at high cost compared to current cellphone technology. But 'good enough for city use' cell tech undercut the market for satellite tech so that the intended (by developers) economy of scale from widespread adoption of 'backcountry capable' two way comms hasn't happened. You can buy easy backcountry two way but few consider it affordable. I don't expect cellular developers to burden themselves with the costs of 'backcountry capability'.
We have the two way technology, we don't choose to use it. Many also have expectations on emergency response based on in town experiences that really aren't applicable in wilderness areas. These two issues have combined to produce consequences for SAR providers.
Dale B. Dalrymple
