I am not sure that technology will affect the overall number of hikers - they still have to deal with uphills, water, bugs, heat etc. Perhaps people will feel safer trying more difficult things if they believe rescue is closer. Digital photography (and broadband) have certainly increased the number and quality of photos posted online, and that may tend to concentrate more people in certain scenic areas. The real change will be in the hiking experience.
Cell phones may speed rescues particularly if with a GPS feature the rescuers know right where to go, but rescues will take place that wouldn't have happened at all before. (Think summit of Mt Jackson where victim would just have walked out themselves the next morning.) In an area with good cell service, it may be harder for the HikeSafe people to insist that groups should stay together if they can remain in contact while apart.
Young people today have mostly grown up in a connected world and many older people have learned to adapt. Twenty-somethings feel invulnerable anyway and may carry a cellphone because being out of instant contact with your friends is worse than the risk of needing a rescue. If you feel the need to be constantly in touch with the outside world, technology is great. However people who hike to experience the quiet of the woods now have to deal not just with loud groups but incessant phone chatter. (On a rainy night in a crowded A.T. leanto, do people really go outside to talk on the phone?)
A couple decades ago, a guy at a company I worked at decided to thru-hike the A.T. He would send letters and postcards to various friends who would post them on the company network, often out of order depending on mail service and work shifts. As mentioned in the article, a later group of thru-hikers would stop in small town libraries to send e-mails and post on the Internet. Now with tablets and smartphones most posts are probably made from the Trail or accommodations - not sure if the librarians think this is good or bad.
A few years back when cell phones were just coming to NH, I asked in this group which providers had the best coverage of the White Mountains for emergency purposes and all replies responded to the question. A few months later somebody asked which provider had the best coverage to call home from AMC huts and boy did they get hammered! I'm sure this person was polite and would have made their calls out of the presence of others, but many people used to go to the huts to get away from everyday life and knew that if their spouse read in the paper that calls could be made from huts they'd want a call every few hours too.
Given that some people want to remain connected at all times and others might prefer a place where they are actually out of touch, I can see that the next item in guidebooks (at least online ones) will be cell coverage maps so people will know where to go or not go. And how long will it be before a GPS and sat phone make it to the required lists in major parks, pricing lower income people out of hiking?
Awhile back I asked about radio transmissions in Wilderness areas. Suppose that the military had developed the technology to block all radio transmissions from a selected area such as an enemy command center, and offered to apply it to Wilderness areas. There would be no more chatter about driveway repairs, but also no weather forecasts, GPS readings, or calls for help. Inevitably someone will die from a delayed rescue, just as inevitably someone will die from a removed bridge or unmarked trail. Should we do it?
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?17928-cone-of-silence
