Years ago a colleague fled to Yosemite for a one week break. We were under huge pressure with managers calling in the middle of the night for status. The guy who fled to California said he picked Yosemite rather than some place with a hotel because "there is not phone on half dome"
Of course that has changed. A dozen years ago AT&T (that would be AT&T 1.0 post-divertiture) ran a series of futuristic ads called You Will. The core idea was you are connected anyplace, anytime - something that many of us currently "enjoy". (the series was something of a magnet for derision)
So imagine my surprise to be paging through the March 13th issue of The New Yorker (fascinating piece by Michael Specter on the White House and science) when I stumbled on an ad from SBC AT&T. A young woman is shown reading in a completely relaxed mode without a communications device in sight. The ad copy suggests that this is her vacation - a piece of space-time so important that she can't be disturbed. It is so important that she needed the DSL access of that company to find this particular spot.
So are we coming to a point where real luxury is the ability to choose not to be connected? Will it be a sign of inferior rank to have a connection to the overlords at all times?
The answer to your question is undeniably "yes" and has been for a long time. Despite the image of the business executive with his laptop, cellphone, and BlackBerry, people in positions of real power are unfettered by such appertances. They rely on assistants to filter all of the communication. As the overload of little buzzing electronics overwhelms even the nerdiest CEO, the ability to disconnect (or at least the appearance of being disconnected) will be more of a status symbol among the lower orders of power.
And, FWIW, even though there is no phone on Half Dome, there is cell service. I know because I made a call from there a few years ago.
Posted by: Brian | March 08, 2006 at 10:50