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.
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.
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
people's desire to climb Everest is much stronger than any solidarity with someone who broke the Nepali law.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm told that the line of sight is pretty good up there. And if Iridium's charges piss you off, you can just stand on your tip-toes and punch one of their satellites to relieve the frustration...
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.
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
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.
This thread is full of racists.
What do all you people saying 'respect their rules' have against undocumented immigrants? Do you just hate Mexicans?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'