SPOTTY CELL COVERAGE A DANGEROUS FACT OF FARM LIFE
Governments must work with telecom companies to ensure that a lifeline exists, Toban Dyck writes.
On Aug. 3, a tornado hit the ground near Alonsa, Man. It was devastating and protracted. The tornado spent 45 minutes on the ground and the event was accompanied by golf-ball-sized hail. Jack Furri, 77, a retired farmer and schoolteacher, was found dead inside his destroyed house.
Environment Canada issued multiple warnings and alerts ahead of the tornado. They were monitoring it. But these notifications only work if the recipient is able to receive them.
“We count on cell service for our emergency services, so this thing is pretty devastating right in the middle of no phone service,” Rural Municipality of Alonsa reeve Stan Asham told CBC. “The only reason now I’m talking to you on my cell now is I’m on a good spot and I’m south of the bad area.”
This is a problem. And it’s a big one.
Weeks later, also in Manitoba, a fire broke out in a grain elevator in the southeastern community of Crystal City. Firefighters were left to scramble.
There was spotty to no cell coverage in the area. Local farmers hearing about the fire attempted to contact friends and family in the area but couldn’t push texts through.
Eventually, those somehow connected to the in-progress event took to Twitter to communicate updates and co-ordinate a response, such as delivering water to the site.
These are just two top-of-mind examples from one province. There are countless similar examples from across Canada.
The economic reality that those living in rural parts of Canada are faced with seems simple, inhumane and incorrigible: where there is density, there is coverage. It’s hard to argue for something different. But something has to be done. If cell companies are waiting for a critical mass of potential customers to move into a certain rural area before boosting their signals or erecting towers, then connectivity will never come to many areas.
Not only should we as consumers want our farmers to be safe, we should also want them to be connected. We should want farmers to have access to as much information as possible, be it to save their lives or to inform their operations.
Farmers can no longer take solace in the notion that the community has their back, as it did a generation or two ago on the farm.
And this change doesn’t point to anything deeper than our widespread reliance on wireless connectivity to anyone and everything. We still care. But, the assumption is largely that if you need help, you call for it.
Farms are risky environments and there is an ongoing and strengthening trend in the agriculture sector to find ways to make grower operations as safe as possible. General Agricultural policy groups such as Keystone Ag Producers perpetually have rural safety on their docket. It routinely comes up. So does connectivity.
For farmers and rural dwellers living in areas that lack density, cell coverage is often promised but rarely implemented.
Governments need to get involved in this, pressuring if not mandating internet and telecommunications companies to provide a verifiable, base level of service to people. Provinces and the feds do this with rail companies, applying pressure for them to maintain a certain level of service.
This is a problem, if we’re committed to closing the gap between farmers and consumers. This is also a problem, if we want people to be safe.
Without cell coverage, the operations on my farm would look very different. I would feel vulnerable and isolated. Every trip to the field would require a lot of thought in preparation for potential scenarios.
We assume everyone is connected.
But not all of us are. And that is sometimes a scary, if not fatal, reality.
Let’s work on fixing that.
Columnist Toban Dyck Without cell coverage, the operations on my farm would look very different. I would feel vulnerable and isolated. Every trip to the field would require a lot of thought in preparation for potential scenarios.