Communication Technology Options: Seven Years Later

Back in 2019, I wrote an article titled “Communication Technology Options: A Vendor-Neutral View.”

Looking back at it seven years later, I think the overall framework held up rather well.

At the time, I wrote:

5G coverage will mean faster connectivity with mobile devices and a more robust data capacity.

Low Earth orbit satellite technology will make 24/7 internet communication possible all over the globe and in all places.

In 2019, those statements seemed like reasonable speculation. Today, they describe reality.

Starlink has become a household name. Portable satellite internet is no longer limited to government agencies, research expeditions, and well-funded organizations. A reasonably portable and increasingly affordable Starlink Mini can provide internet access in many remote locations.

It’s too heavy to schlep while backpacking, but many RVers, rafters, field crews, people at base camps, and van lifers (of course!) regularly use this technology.

The larger trend, however, is even more interesting.

Back in 2019, satellite communication generally meant carrying a separate device. If you wanted to communicate beyond cellular coverage, you packed a Garmin inReach, SPOT device, or a Personal Locator Beacon (PLB).

Today, many people already carry some form of satellite communication in their pockets.

Apple’s satellite messaging capability allows communication when outside cellular coverage. Other phones offer a form of this capability, too. T-Mobile’s partnership with Starlink pushes the concept even further by enabling satellite communication on phones people already own.

That’s the wrinkle I did not fully anticipate in 2019.

I expected Low Earth Orbit satellite networks to become commonplace. I did not expect satellite communication to become integrated into mainstream consumer devices quite so quickly.

That development puts Garmin in an interesting position.

Newer inReach models offer photo sharing, voice messaging, and other expanded communication options. And, to their credit, they are now allowing SOS services even if you discontinue a data plan.

However, dedicated two-way satellite messaging devices are becoming a niche product.

There are good reasons to carry a separate device. Redundancy matters, and dedicated communicators offer excellent battery life and provide a communication system separate from the phone you use for navigation, photography, and everything else.

At the same time, history suggests that most people prefer carrying one device rather than two. Any remaining technical advantages of a standalone device will likely continue to shrink with each passing year.

We’ve seen this pattern before.

Dedicated GPS receivers largely gave way to smartphones for most users. Point-and-shoot cameras were largely replaced by mobile devices. MP3 players followed a similar path.

My gut feeling? Dedicated two-way messaging devices are headed in the same direction.

Adding voice messaging and photo sharing feels a bit like rearranging deck chairs before that ship hits the proverbial iceberg. Those features may appeal to some users, but they do not address the larger trend. Most people will eventually default to a single device that does it all.

Dedicated satellite communicators will likely remain useful for guides, SAR personnel, field crews, expedition travelers, and others who value redundancy. Much like dedicated cameras or GPS units, they will become increasingly specialized tools rather than the default solution for backcountry communication.

Interestingly, this trend may strengthen the case for Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs) for certain edge cases and specialized uses. Winter mountaineering, extreme cold weather, and international travel come to mind.

And, as a gentle reminder, a PLB and a satellite messenger are not the same thing.

A PLB is not trying to be a smartphone or a messaging platform. It works on government satellites, has a battery life of 5-10 years, can operate in temperatures as low as -40 F/C  and as high as 133F / 56C  in some models, and requires no subscription.

It performs one task: sending an emergency distress signal when everything else has gone wrong.

It’s a reliable “Hail Mary Pass” for when the proverbial fecal matter hits the oscillating device.

 

As I noted in 2019, the technology continues to evolve rapidly.

Satellite communication will become increasingly standard in the years ahead. Much as we no longer think about GPS receivers or 4G coverage as separate technologies, satellite connectivity will become part of the communications infrastructure we expect our devices to have in the backcountry.

At the same time, I think we’ll continue to see a place for simple, purpose-built emergency devices.

If I had to make a prediction, Garmin survives by focusing on markets where redundancy, reliability, and battery longevity matter most. Aviation, marine, emergency response, and expedition travel all come to mind. I’m less certain about the long-term future of lower-market-share products, such as SPOT.

PLBs may persist longer than many people expect because they don’t compete with smartphones and instead rely on a government satellite system. The “set it and forget it” approach, no subscription fees, and a single purpose that works in extreme conditions remain compelling advantages for some users or groups.

But technology is only part of the story.

The biggest change is the ongoing cultural shift and evolving expectations that I wrote about quite some time ago, and that people wrote about even earlier than I did.

I’m concerned that if communication becomes readily available at any time, people, especially in American work culture, will expect that level of connectivity from you as well.

As the Watermans wrote –

“When a new technology is applied to the backcountry, we tend to focus on its practical uses. When someone later points out a gadget’s impact on the quality of the wilderness experience, we tend to classify such ramifications “secondary”  or “side effects” of the technology’s application. By taking this view, we preclude questioning the original, intended use of this technology. But in fact the changes that a new technology makes on the wilderness experience are not all secondary, but are intrinsic to the very nature of that technology. The medium is the message. The tool becomes the experience.”

The challenge is no longer whether communication is possible from remote locations. The challenge is deciding how much connectivity we actually want or expect from others.

I still think of a cartoon from 1997 that remains remarkably relevant today –

We are on the cusp of always being connected in the backcountry. Is it what we want? And will we expect it of everyone?