Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Video Broadcast From Mt. Everest Peak Outrages Tourist Ministry of Nepal

Posted by Unknown on from the misapplication-of-the-law dept.

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?"

14 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Their country, their rules by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Their country, their rules by vettemph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with following the rules.
      In a solidarity move, I would recommend everyone ban themselves from Mt. Everest for ten years. Don't travel to the country for five years.
      Nepal will have to change the rules if they want tourist to return any sooner. Let them choke on their rules.

      Some people get mad when rules a broken. Others get mad when rules are made.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    2. Re:Their country, their rules by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more of a 'their tourist trap, their rules' sort of thing.

      Complaining about the rules of a country(which, even in theoretically democratic and whatnot locations, can get rather unpleasant rather fast and can be a forceful imposition on a fair chunk of the citizenry) is a perfectly valid passtime. And, Nepal is hardly a poster child for high-quality governance services.

      Everest, though, is basically a high-altitude theme park. They charge admission(it's called a 'permit'; but it's essentially an 'Admit one to scenic Mount Everest' ticket), and the various concession stands have their own offerings on tap. Gosh, how horrid and shocking. Now they want to deny admission to somebody who didn't pay to have his picture taken at one of the photo kiosks. What a banal little dispute.

    3. Re:Their country, their rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Their country, their rules.

      Not valid here. Mt. Everest is something of worldwide importance. Nepal did not create it nor should they "own" it.

      The only reason they can have "rules" is if those are for preservation of the ecosystem, but I don't see any violation in that context here.

    4. Re:Their country, their rules by ammorais · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their country, their rules.

      Not valid here. Mt. Everest is something of worldwide importance. Nepal did not create it nor should they "own" it.

      The only reason they can have "rules" is if those are for preservation of the ecosystem, but I don't see any violation in that context here.

      Did you even tough about what you just wrote?
      So what you're saying is because the Grand Canyon is of worldwide importance, we should ignore U.S. laws.

    5. Re:Their country, their rules by sirlark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, there's a lot at play here. Firstly, there are issues with the terminology. From a tech perspective, Mr. Hughes didn't perform the broadcast, the BBC did - from England. Mr. Hughes made a video call. That's not a broadcast, it's a point-to-point transmission from the perspective of information transfer. Yes, the cellular phone (asuming it was cellular) was broadcasting omnidirectionally, but it was doing that anyway just for voice, which seems to be okay. From the article, it definitely seems like they're complaining about the content of the transmission, rather than the transmission itself.

      That said everyone assumes the rules are for environmental reasons, but the article mentions 'a restricted area'. From my travels in the Himalayas in India, I know pretty much the entire provice of Kashmir is a restricted area. No internet data on pre-paid sims for foreigners, or even SMS's. It's crawling with the military. I don't know what the political situation in Nepal is, but is it possible this is a similar concept of 'restricted area'? If so I'm sure the military doesn't want strange broadcasts happening, but if the smartphone used a standard cellular network, and as opposed to a satellite phone, or even video+voice over IP, then I still don't see how it could upset anyone. The article leaves out a fair amount of detail unfortunately.

    6. Re:Their country, their rules by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To me, free speech and free press are human rights, not to be abridged for profit or for the purpose of controlling what is said,

      I'm sure the guy could have said anything he wanted while he was up on top of that mountain. The right to say anything is not the right to come into your house and take pictures and broadcast them to the world without your permission, even if you have invited me to dinner. His "human right to free speech and free press" were not abridged by the fee to broadcast from Everest. He was still free to go home and say anything he wanted about anything. He could have turned to the Sherpa standing next to him and said whatever he wanted. He could have taken photographs, written a story or poem or essay.

      Many libertarians (I'm not saying this is you, drinky), go off the rails on this issue. It ends up with "speech = money, money = speech" which dead ends at "paying people to vote". It is a sentiment that comes from believing that the people with the most money have your best interest at heart, which comes from missing Daddy.

      I don't blame Nepal for being very stingy with their heritage sites. The West believes about every place on earth, about every culture, "Fuck them, I do what I want because I've this big bag of money hanging between my legs" and yet when the people whose home they are in want to charge for the goodies it's all, "FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH!! HUMAN RIGHTS!!". This ends in the "human right of white people to exploit the Third World".

      Let's not bullshit. The libertarians who make the most noise (and I'm not saying this is you, drink) don't give one flip about human rights. They're children of privilege who are trying to press their advantage, nothing more.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Their country, their rules by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you ban yourself from New York because of the $3500 fee they charge for filming in certain public buildings? Or is it just developing countries where you demand that all privileges be provided free for the Western tourists?

  2. Easier to ask for forgiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. It's their country.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  4. Re:This isn't "extortion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The rules were established for various values of 'established'

    What the hell does this even mean?

  5. Re:It's a commercial broadcast by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep, especially since it's quite possibly an honest misunderstanding over the letter vs. the spirit of the law. The guy in question was using a *smartphone*, not any kind of serious broadcast quality camera rig, or even a consumer level camcorder for that matter, so it's entirely possible that the BBC genuinely believed that wasn't covered by the permit requirement. From personal experience I can state that the regulations concerning commercial vs. non-commercial photography are typically a poorly conceived mess with entirely arbitrary rules that are badly outdated by the rapidly advancing pace of camera technology - "mistakes" like this are quite common.

    If the Nepali's noses are seriously out of joint then perhaps a small donation to the Sherpas that risk life and limb to bring down all those discarded air bottles and other crap turning Everest into the world's highest landfill would make amends.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  6. Re:Expensive call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It costs around $2,000 (£1,324) to get this permit."

    It's nothing compared to the cost of a summit excursion: $70,000 to $100,000. The dude should pay the fee and shut his mouth.

  7. Nepal can charge what it likes by TheMathemagician · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.