Slashdot Mirror
First Video Broadcast From Mt. Everest Peak Outrages Tourist Ministry of Nepal
hutsell writes "On May 19th, Daniel Hughes spoke to BBC News live from the world's highest peak using his smartphone, making it the first live broadcast from Everest. (The actual video — showing the importance of oxygen along with his panoramic view — on the BBC page, is bookend with talking heads and a front-end advert.) However, since he and his team failed to get a commercial broadcast permit (costing about 2 grand) without the Nepali Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Aviation's knowledge, officials want to impose the penalty of having them banned from obtaining climbing permits for 10 years or from entering the country for 5 years. From the article, a quote from Dipendra Poudel, an official of the Ministry's mountain branch: 'The mountaineering rules say if you want to make a live telecast from the mountain, which is a restricted area, you have to get a permit first and inform us early about what you're going to do.' Those protesting against the decision feel the intent of the law is being misinterpreted; it's failing to keep up with the recent fundamental changes in technology. A permit that was meant to deal with ecological repercussions, doesn't seem to apply in this case. If it doesn't, is it really about disrespect, money, a tourism copyright angle, or all of the above? Then again, should the Nepal government ignore outsiders questioning their motives?"
"It costs around $2,000 (£1,324) to get this permit."
Wow, that's an expensive call. Time to stop complaining about Verizon's prices
While it might seem odd that one can't use their phone to hold a press conference from the top of the world, Nepal is the country which sets the rules.
Don't like the rules, don't go to the country.
It's like in Singapore where if you spit on the sidewalk, you will most likely get a ticket. You can't complain that you do it in your country so why can't you do it there.
Their country, their rules.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
People who ignore the rules rule the world, because it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Learn from this, kids: Life is not about following the rules, it's about what you can get away with.
I'm all for people spending their money and their lives any way they want... I don't feel a need to be informed about pointless and fairly fake endeavours though.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
It's not really up to anyone outside Nepal to tell them how to change their laws, they're an independent nation. This isn't a human rights issue or something similarly abusive to a group of people.
If they need you to get a broadcast permit, however ridiculous it seems, get a broadcast permit.
That being said: Once you've peaked Everest - chances are a 10 year ban on climbing permits or not being able to go back to Nepal without some challenges.. OH NO! Guess the annual Everest peaking will be put off for this guy!
They weren't in Nepal, they were on the other side of the mountain (and hence the other side of the border), in China.
Sure, they entered China without permission, and so might get into trouble there...
Alternatively, they could just say, "fuck you Nepalise stupid Maoist governments" and fund a revolution to bring about equality and freedom. Oh wait.
The rules were established before the events took place. But you're free to continue with your off-topic libertarian rant if you wish.
Let them pay up - rather than punish them. But clearly Nepal has every right to impose this tax; it's not like they're Americans who expect to get to vote on taxes ;)
The BBC should boycott Nepal and stay out for, say, 10 years - that'll teach 'em!
I can see coming to the US, doing something without official permission, then saying our rules "fail to keep up with the recent changes in technology." That'll fly...
A permit that was meant to deal with ecological repercussions, doesn't seem to apply in this case. If it doesn't, is it really about disrespect, money, a tourism copyright angle, or all of the above? Then again, should the Nepal government ignore outsiders questioning their motives?
Fuck you, hutsell, for making rhetoric trying to blame Nepal for BBC's disrespect for other country's law. So what if it is about money? Non-western country can't make money from broadcasting rights?
From the story:
Mr Hamilton said he had been operating in Nepal for the past 20 years without infringing local laws and sensibilities.
"If we realised this filming was going to be an issue, we would have tried to head it off at the beginning.
"As far as we see it, the rules are a little bit grey about shooting short video clips and putting them on websites."
And fuck you, too, Mr Hamilton. If you operate in a country in 20 years and still don't know their laws regarding the single most place there, you are incompetent and negligent, period.
The rules are only "a little bit grey" because you broke it and is making excuses.
Try shooting "short video clips" from English Premier League without a license and put it on BBC News live broadcast, then see how "a little bit grey" broadcasting rights is in your own fucking country when they sue your ass off, instead of just banning you from coming again for 10 years.
The BBC should know better and pay up it's not the first time they've done broadcasts from the summit (OK it's the first live broadcast) they must have had to get permits previously so why didn't they bother this time? The Nepalese Government should stick to their guns on this one. Their country their rules.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Presumably one has to have a certain degree of affluence to go climbing up Everest; stop being so tight and pay the money.....
I believe that unless the BBC was broadcasting from the Mt., existing international treaties would consider the initial act to be a telephone call. Their country, their rules, their treaty obligations.
As someone who actually went to Nepal i can tell you that you will need permits for almost everything you do as a tourist.
I guess i can't really blame them. They aren't the richest country and tourism is thier main source of income.
A permit that was meant to deal with ecological repercussions ... is it really about disrespect, money, a ... copyright angle, or all of the above?
The answer is yes, and it applies to virtually every government "permitting" process you can name that doesn't deal specifically with industrial development. It's already reached ludicrous proportions and it's only going to get worse. When they demand a permit (that you may or may not get) just to move a pile of dirt from one side of your residential yard to another, you know it's about more than some bogus "ecological repercussions" - that was just the foot in the door.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What makes you think the people of Nepal agree with the government of Nepal? We only know what the government of Nepal thinks. We know nothing about what the people of Nepal think.
The people and the government are NOT one and the same (if they were, then logically, the government wouldn't need the power of coercion).
people's desire to climb Everest is much stronger than any solidarity with someone who broke the Nepali law.
Could someone explain how you get cell reception on top of Mt. Everest? I'm interested in the technical details: where's the nearest cell tower, etc.
there is so much wrong in your comment
Most of the arguments so far are like "we can break any law we want because we are special." How about trying to respect the laws of the country you are in?
The folks could have asked for permission and if they really wanted to play nice, even pay up for the permit as a goodwill gesture.
Nepal has never made a secret of the fact that it doesn't want hordes of Westerners climbing over its mountains. However rather than ban them they've decided to charge them through the nose and use the money to alleviate the environmental damage, provide some employment, and educate some kids. Nepal is relatively corruption-free (compared to India) and most of the $$$ does actually do some good. If you don't like it, don't go to Nepal.
From this article, (well worth the read, BTW)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22680192
"Westerners can pay anything from $10,000 (£6,600) to $100,000 (£66,000) for permits to climb the mountain and guides to accompany them..."
So, $2k extra seems modest. I'm sure this argument could be quickly solved by an apology and payment of the $2k retrospectively.
Reminds me one time I was skippering a ship for some friends in the Caribbean; the mooring fees seemed pretty high to me, (just to tie up to a small buoy for the night; no other amenities).
When I commented on this to the official, he said "you've got a yacht, you can afford it".
I looked out of the window of his grubby shack at our (rented) 42' boat. Yeah, he was right.
That's just the way things are done in Nepal....
I want to know how this guy was able to get a signal on the top of Everest and make a video call, while I drop calls all the time in my own home.
The Everest climb is one of the country's primary ways to raise revenue. Give them their money, the country has few was to raise it otherwise.
And he is complaining about a day hike that just happen to go to the top of the world? He knew where he was going and what he was going to do. This is not a day hike. My understanding is it cost big money and lots of training and planning to just make the attempt. Just make a big donation to the government and I am sure he can play in the backyard again.
I always wondered if I needed to climb Everest to get a decent connection. Now I know the answer.
and say that they most likely did not know the rules. That is such an outdated rule, that it is likely they did not even think twice - especially if they were using a smartphone. The government is most likely acting like this because its the BBC.
That being said, as many other have pointed out, their country, their rules.
You could always take the northern route from Tibet, but I have a feeling that the Chinese government would be harder on them than Nepal.
Of course it applies in this case. Track the flow of hard western cash in the hands of state officials in a dictatorship.
useful idiot : n A person in the free west buying into the sappy cover stories justifying the gaining and maintaining of power of dictators. origin Jos. Stalin
What concerns the widdle minds of people changes over the decades, but the real behaviors do not.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If you don't impose some laws, people tend to break all of them. I am not usually with Nepal's law, but there are some ecological laws one must follow. E.g There was once a plan for a musical concert on the base camp of Mount Everest. They had to cancel it for ecological reasons, because that would endanger the mountain itself. Even though Mount Everest is on Nepal, we have some responsibility to preserve it for the rest of the world. If people start breaking small laws, and protest each one, they will start ignoring even the ones that is related to the wild lives in Himalayas. Every year those mountains are filled with oxygen tanks, and dirt people take there. Even though you might never intend to travel to the Mountain, it is yours too.
What bad could broadcasting a video could cause?
None. But there are chain reactions to some actions. Fuck you, because I paid for the permit, does not mean E.g. You can go to Mount Everest and starting breaking rocks.
"We weren't told in advance!!!"
"And they didn't give us any MONEY!!!!!"
*pout*
So, who's the defendant in this? Is it the climber who used his own smartphone to do an interview with the BBC? Or is it the BBC?
Of course, the sane thing, given the reason for the BBC doing the interview in the first place (Hughes doing the climb to raise money for Comic Relief), would have been for the Nepali Ministry of Tourism to make a statement regretting that the video interview took place without their prior knowledge, remind everyone that permits should be sought and either bill Hughes or the BBC for the $2000. Whining on about bans would only make sense if the expedition had taken a BBC camera crew up there and neglected to pay for a permit.
The reason for the Ministrys hissy fit is probably down to departmental empire building. Whoever initiated it probably didn't consider that in effect they would be dipping into a charitable activity, which says a lot about their attitude to the rest of the world, making them appear like selfish and insensitive scrooges, rather than a desire to ensure that everyone played by their rules.
Maybe I don't see evil everywhere it is, but I think in that case the rules are here to protect the site.
Imagine, for the sake of pushing things too far, that a group of people decide to do all sorts of sexual things on top of the Everest or Anapurna, and boradcast this to the world. It would damage the reputation of the site, and Nepal as a whole. Don't you think Nepal has a right to control what, where and when things are broadcast on their land ?
Just saying.
Is evident by the fact there is a waiting line to the top of Everest and there are fist fights amongst those waiting.
If you don't like the rules, change them.
The four boxes should be used in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
There are cases when intentionally ignoring the rules is the right thing to do (see Rosa Parks). But that is always after first trying to get the rules changed.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
We need a Mt. Everest webcam.
Anybody who works in the media industry knows that if you are shooting/broadcasting/whatever on private property, you need permission and if you are on public property, you usually need a permit. This is true in Manhattan. It is true in Mumbai. Not doing this is called "stealing a location". Stealing from a country like Nepal that has trouble paying to keep it's power on more than 4 hours a day is pretty shameful.
First off, like it or not, it's their rules. Whether you agree with it or not, abide by their rules or suffer the consequences in their judicial system. If you were a visitor in any other country and blatantly violated the law and were caught, would you not be subject to their laws then?
Second, having been there twice, the rules are specific. No professional video is allowed. If you are caught at the entrance to the park with what the military (they are the guards) think is professional equipment, it will either be confiscated (no returns) or you will be denied entrance to the park. Like it or not, they set the rules and can enforce them at will (and often do).
Third, from the signage and the permit you receive when you enter the park, this reporter can't deny he (assumed he at this point) knew this would be illegal. He is only lucky he didn't go to jail.
No, I don't feel sorry for him. Nepal has EVERY right to do this and EVERY right to make as big a deal out of this as they want. He was a VISITOR to THEIR country!