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?"
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!
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!
"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.
he's trying to sound smart - for various values of 'smart'
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 rules were written to cover the situation of people setting up something at least roughly like a largeish array of a videotape holding camera, a boom mike, a foldable dish, battery packs and such to transmit commercial video from a remote location. It's the kind of thing where Everest expeditions tended to leave extra clutter and junk behind, and that's part of the justification for the fees. The rules, as read, spell out some specific situations, and are so 'established' - if you take those rules, ignore some parts, and maybe put in some verbal only interpretations that let some minor government official stretch those rules to cover technologies that didn't exist when those rules were written, you get this situation, where a lot of things have not have been legally 'established'.
The rules are also being used to give the government heads up before any image can be sent, which makes a good backdoor way of knowing when to put persons in place to censor what gets sent out. Yeah, they're probably just trying to make sure it looks good to attract more tourists, not stifle political dissent. Still, why encourage that?
Who is John Cabal?