First Video Broadcast From Mt. Everest Peak Outrages Tourist Ministry of Nepal 204
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?"
Expensive call (Score:3, Funny)
"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
Re:Expensive call (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 [whatitcosts.com]. The dude should pay the fee and shut his mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the laws of the country that you're operating in (stepping over the fact that the actual summit defines part of the China-Nepal border ; or Tibet-Nepal, if you take your salted yak-butter chai that way) require you to do that, and the permit (i.e. contract) that you agreed to the terms of in order to be permitted to climb on the mountain, requires that you comply by those laws. Also, on entering most countries that I've entered, I've had to sign forms that amount to
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Asshole bureaucrats are asshole bureaucrats all throughout the world.
Their country, their rules (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.
Re:Their country, their rules (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.
Re:Their country, their rules (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ban yourself from New York because of the $3500 fee they charge for filming in certain public buildings?
Maybe. Just point me to the articles detailing how NYC is hounding people to pony up for making video calls from the top of the empire state building. My indignation is ready to flow!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ban yourself from New York because of the $3500 fee they charge for filming in certain public buildings?
Please do.
Pretty please?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Does that $3500 fee apply to people who whip out their cell phone and make a short video for Vine?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't?
I mean ... if it's either pony up $3500 or they don't want me there ... then it's a clear sign for me that they don't want me there. It' can't be any more clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how overrun Everest is [nationalgeographic.com] these days, this would be the best thing to happen to the mountain.
Re: (Score:2)
The rules are about live broadcasting. This was a clip on YouTube. That's not live broadcasting. I think some people have a job they don't really understand.
Re: (Score:2)
No, surely he made a one-to-one video call, which the BBC then broadcast. He did not broadcast anything.
Re:Their country, their rules (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.
Re: (Score:3)
its always a point-to-point transmission, even when a proper tv crew with a satellite uplink broadcasts news. They transfer it to some central broadcasting station from where it is overlaid with graphics and all and then broadcasted. In this case the tv crew and their satellite van is just replaced by a smartphone.
Re: (Score:2)
You are making a technical argument on a legal issue - see the disconnect yourself?
The technical and the legal definitions of the word "broadcast" aren't identical. Just like the TCP/IP and the postal service definitions of the word "packet" aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
From a tech perspective, Mr. Hughes didn't perform the broadcast, the BBC did - from England.
The geek has a tendency to construct over-elaborate and implausible technical arguments to evade the law. The broadcast originated in Nepal and was distributed through the networks and services of the BBC. End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn now I am curious what kind of cell reception you'd get up there.
Re:Their country, their rules (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was basically the analogy I had in mind. I am, as a rule, extremely suspicious of any set of 'oh-so-reasonable' regulations that would be useful in curtailing inconvenient reporters(and Nepal, with its somewhat delicate governance, recent history of insurgency, and poor transparency numbers, doesn't set the mind at ease); but in the context of a theme park(admittedly a rather majestic and mostly naturally occurring one), it's just hard to get too worked up about it.
Is basically every fee inside a theme
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Honestly, I don't think you are appreciating the dangers of climbing Mount Everest. It is not an easy or safe climb. If I were in charge of it, I would want to impose a fee on all visitors, too. If someone gets halfway up to the top and needs help, who foots the bill? The Nepal government. It's a serious hike and if charging a fee helps people understand that it is a serious hike, I'm all for it. How often do you hear about people activating emergency beacons in the US because they didn't pack enough w
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC doesn't use advertising. (Why I very occasionally actually watch it).
Depends on jurisdiction: in country, they are supported by the license fees on TV and radio reception capable hardware. Outside, they do run ads, or their material is licensed by other broadcasters who have their own ways(sometimes ads, sometimes subscriptions, sometimes both) of paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re::Their country, their rules
Yep. I must agree with you. Especially since the USA seems to want to go to war with other countries and individuals about them breaking our laws in their countries (see copyright, Kim Dotcom, the Dmitri Skylarov case, kidnapping Manuel Noriega for breaking "our laws", and probably a million other things), it seems minimal to allow a country to fucking assert its own laws in its own sovereign territory.
Their country, their rules. Though as to your comment about "You can't co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. That made me smile.
I'll donate one bucket of rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Most laws people disagree with, it's not a matter of "you can't pass that law," it's a matter of "You SHOULDN'T pass that law." Sometimes the objections do come in the form of "you can't pass it," but that's usually an excuse. The patriot act, for example. My objection to it isn't really that congress is unable to enact it legally. Were the supreme court to knock
Re: (Score:2)
Don't like the rules, don't go to the country.
Whether or not it's okay for Nepal to decide on filming rights, please be careful about trotting out this meme.
Mindless deference to authority - "You get to set the rules, I have to obey them or play with someone else" - is what leaves our society stagnant. If something is in fact a stupid rule, it will only get changed when enough people speak up.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't go to the USA, I'm a citizen and live here. Therefore, I figure I have the right to complain about the laws. I also have the rights, which I exercise, of voting for people I think will best support my positions, sending them messages of whatever form, and giving money to people who I think will help shape the laws my way.
If I were to go to Nepal, I'd have no legitimate influence on the laws, and it would behoove me to obey them or not go there. If Nepal's a stagnant society, that's really thei
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm hardly going to say that I'm impressed by the odds of the cash actually going somewhere worthwhile(Nepal's scores on corruption are... unenviable... at best); but I do remember hearing some wacky theory to the effect that you can 'efficiently allocate' a 'scarce good' using what economists refer to as 'prices'.
It's pretty cutting edge stuff, I know; but it is theoretically possible that using these 'price' things to limit overcrowding of one of the world's more crowd-pleasing mountains may not actually
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is that they were already allowed to go there, so what possible interest besides bullshit rent-seeking is there to prohibit a broadcast?
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, the only purposes they could possibly have for this license. Therefore, this license is an example of evil. It is by no means unique in that regard. For that matter, the low odds of the cash going somewhere worthwhile are not at
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hence, "free press" and not just "free speech".
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.
Nobody has your best interest at heart, except you. Anyone who claims to believe in the benevolence of abstract others has no idea what libertarianism is about.
I don't blame Nepal for being very stingy with their heritage sites.
It's not being stingy, it's changing the terms after the fact. If they don't want video recorded and transmitted, then they should charge a broadcaster's fee to anyone who brings a device capable of recording and transmitting video. We could go on and on with this "but the law said! the law must be fo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, have you been to a college campus recently? It's almost the exclusive domain of anarcho-communists and such.
Re: (Score:2)
I never mentioned anything about "intelligent students", what point are you making?
And really? You can't name any other liberal/libertarian figures? Like, you know, every single economist ever? (You know, the people who are actually authoritative when it comes to studying decision making and scarcity)? The people who founded the country and the vast majority of other Enlightenment figures? I'd think that's kind of important.
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the people who were at the Constitutional Convention, go and count how many were actually slave owners. Hint: Not many.
How does one "live as libertarian" anyways? It's a political philosophy, the proper role of government and all that (specifically, the proper use of force, not "what's the best way to run my business"). Go read the Declaration of Independence, even the current Constitution that you say was "counter-revolutionary" (did you somehow forget George Washington served as the first president
Re: (Score:2)
They were elitist.
The purpose of the Constitution was to dilute the influence of individuals and increase the influence of the elite. It was an exercise in anti-democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the Constitution (and the Articles of Confederation before it) is to minimize the power of the Federal government, this is both the explicit goal and end effect. This necessarily implies not being a democracy.
Major Citation Needed on how this is somehow "elitist". Again, the sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit power.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it's done poorly. When the Founders decided on the "representative republic" they were basically saying, "Let the wolves rule". All of the problems we're having today could have been foreseen by them, but I'm convinced that's the way they wanted it.
If the individual is important, than it's important that the individual at least have some say, which dem
Re: (Score:2)
And it's clearly done a bang-up job.
I would recommend differentiating a little more between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederacy. The latter was a revolutionary document, the former is not.
Limit power by t
Re: (Score:2)
Giving people a democracy would give them the power to pass any law they want. Let me rephrase that: Tyranny of the majority. This does not limit power, it's the worst form of it.
The Senate limits power: It means additional measures are required to pass a law. It's not as if the House or the Senate can write laws, the House and the Senate have to write the laws, and agree on them, and vote, and send it to the president. You appear to be under the impression that the exhaustive list of political systems is t
Re: Their country, their rules (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how can the Nepallese determin that if permission is never asked for before hand. All they know is that climbers need permission to make broadcast films and this guy made a broadcast film without permission.
The idea Nepals' laws are just behind the times and therefore can be ignored is a slippery slope (a slippery slope... on everest... get it... boom boom).
If you are in another country, you
Re: (Score:2)
Racist! What do you have against undocumented immigrants. Republican!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that they were already allowed to go there, so what possible interest besides bullshit rent-seeking is there to prohibit a broadcast?
Cleverly applied Striesand Effect, perhaps? By protesting, attention is drawn to the concept of broadcasting from Everest. Now everyone wants to do it. Demand for permits goes sky-high. Profits soar.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with rent-seeking? I live in a country which has taxes, and every single one of them is rent-seeking. Most of them are widely supported by broad expanses of the voting populace who happen to disagree on many other things. Rent-seeking is something that most people expect governments to do, and they complain about deficits and debt if the government negligently fails to do enough of it.
If someone isn't grumbling about the unfair tax or
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think rent seeking mens what you think it does. And the problem with it is that it creates inefficient allocation of resources and black holes that absorb wealth without producing.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: The problem here is that they were already allowed to go there, so what possible interest besides bullshit rent-seeking is there to prohibit a broadcast?
Money, and that's all there is to it.
Professional sports leagues so this all across the US. Per the warnings on the TV broadcasts I'm not even supposed to talk with a co-worker about a game I watched without written consent from the league.
At least one can speak freely about their experience on Everest...
Re: (Score:2)
so what possible interest besides bullshit rent-seeking
Why aren't Nepal allowed to collect rent?
To me, free speech and free press are human rights
You must be an American. Your constitution and it's particular extremes apply to your country, not other people's.
Re: (Score:2)
Hang on a sec. Drinkiepoo? You're British aren't you? No such thing as a right to free speech in Britain. Thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, free speech and free press are human rights
So if you allow someone into your home, it is ok if they just start filiming without your permission.
Re:This isn't "extortion" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the "Libertarians" around here are actually Anarcho-capitalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most anarchist societies seem to be commonly held properties with internal rules and should people refuse to comply can be removed from the entity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The rules were established for various values of 'established'
What the hell does this even mean?
Re:This isn't "extortion" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This isn't "extortion" (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Their country, their rules (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! You should see the permit cost to broadcast from the Grand Canyon! .... oh, wait.....
The exact price isn't listed [nps.gov]; but for $100, you can ask.
Re: Their country, their rules (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is the listing of fees:
http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/GRCA-2007change-in-FilmingFees.pdf [nps.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The "Location Fees" are broken out; but "Cost recovery charges", "Hourly management Fees" and "Extended administrative time" are likely to vary substantially by project.
On the plus side, that level of granularity suggests that the fee structure is actually remotely related to the cost of providing the service. On the minus side, it makes it hard to get a price upfront.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Is there anything other than human labor and IP law that wouldn't fail that test?
Re: (Score:2)
Your post was fine until you made the American comment, which shows you as kind of douchey.
The OP could be from anywhere...the post implies nothing about his nationality.
Re: (Score:2)
Note the difference between "Iraq" and "Iraqis". There's a difference between states owning something and individuals owning something.
Easier to ask for forgiveness (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Try that in Singapore with pot.
Well with pot, you shouldn't get away with (in Singapore)! You should smoke it!
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very Confucian concept.
It's their country.. (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!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really up to anyone outside Nepal to tell them how to change their laws, they're an independent nation.
If they're so independent, then surely they can withstand the criticism of outsiders? If it offends them so much, they can just ignore it.
This isn't a human rights issue or something similarly abusive to a group of people.
Unless you consider freedom of movement a right.
If they need you to get a broadcast permit, however ridiculous it seems, get a broadcast permit.
Except that the requirement was not clear before the fact. Capricious enforcement is in some ways worse than heavy handed but consistent enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
If I started getting the idea that there were some odd, unpublicised laws which seemed to have 'draconian interpretations' or relatively excessive consequences in Nepal, or anywhere else, I might avoid that nation on the principle that they may have many more, that some of them might have much worse consequences than being told to get off a mountain and stay off, and the chance of a more serious problem appears to be high. For more on this, just look up "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", and whether
just claim to have been in China (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
THey should know better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Permitting (Score:2)
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.
Nepal can charge what it likes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nepal is generally ranked as more corrupt than India; but it's still their theme park, and one that is arguably overcrowded even at the present price...(and you can always go up the other side, which is substantially cheaper, albeit rather more challenging)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, don't go to Nepal.
This idea seems to encapsulate the belief that everything in the world is perfect. Laws are never arbitrary, enforcement is perfectly consistent, and knowledge is uniform. In the reality we actually live in, the sentiment ought to be "if the Nepalese don't want people filming anything, they should tell them that at the summit, or else confiscate their equipment, or levy a fee prior to entry." If they're not going to be upfront about it, that ought to be considered their own fault.
Just pay the money; it's peanuts... (Score:5, Interesting)
From this article, (well worth the read, BTW)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22680192 [bbc.co.uk]
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
What is funny is, and I'm sure you know this, many many cruisers are older people on VERY fixed incomes or simply depleting sailing kitties and for many the fees are exorbitant. Esp if you chose to use a catamaran!
In many cases the people are very rich, but I'd go so far as to say in MOST cases that is simply not true. Many older couples have sold their houses are are sailing on their pensions/social security, plus a bit of savings.
Yes, pay a fine and move on. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
i'd go the other way, organize a boycott of climbers for a couple years. let the turds in the Nepal government know who is the bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
vs
"i'd go the other way, organize a boycott of climbers for a couple years. let the turds in the Nepal government know who is the bitch."
Well, I guess that pretty much summarizes this debate--consideration, common-sense and respect on one hand, with ego, bullying and vindictiveness on the other. This is the real issue at hand--our extreme capacity for divisiveness.
D
It's really hard getting five bars on Sprint. (Score:3)
I am going to give them the benefit of a doubt... (Score:2)
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.
order of action (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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.
every pro knows they need permits (Score:3)
Re:It's a commercial broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I wouldn't necessarily bet on it. Had they done a voice call, sure; but(much to the chagrin of team telco) most services more sophisticated than MMS are build by 3rd parties who don't loath their customers, over IP, and if they happen to run on smartphones it's because the phones in question have internet connections just like real computers... It isn't impossible, the ITU probably regurgitated something about 'video phones' back when one was on show at The House of The Future in 1964 or whatever; but most
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
full hspa+ coverage on and around the peak [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
This thread is full of racists.
What do all you people saying 'respect their rules' have against undocumented immigrants? Do you just hate Mexicans?