Chinese Censorship Gets Blasted By NTD TV 32
jjp9999 writes "Despite years of pressure from the Chinese regime, independent television station NTD TV will resume its broadcast throughout China with a Taiwanese satellite. Chinese residents throughout the mainland can receive the broadcast using satellite dishes (which are illegal) and get a glimpse of the world beyond the Great Firewall. Taiwan's Chunghwa Telecom (CHT) satellite provider fought the ruling tooth and nail, yet folded under pressure from the Taiwanese premier, the vice president of European Parliament, human rights groups, and other international bodies. A similar case took place when French satellite company Eutelsat cut NTD TV's broadcast into China just short of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Although they said the outage was due to technical problems, an investigation by Reporters Without Borders caught Eutelsat employees red handed, recording admissions they cut the service due to pressure from the Chinese communist regime."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There may have also been a more political reason. "Chungwa" means "Chinese" (more in the ethnic sense than in the sovereign state sense). When the Chinese took over Taiwan after WWII they set about trying to make the countr
Re: (Score:2)
Having spent some time in Taiwan I'd say it works like this
5% of the population want de jure independence as opposed to the current de facto sort. If Taiwan declared de jure independence the Chinese would invade.
5% of the population want to join China.
90% of the population want to keep the status quo for the time being.
But it's more complex than that - the people that want to join China actually want to join the Republic of China, not the People's Republic.
So really the overwhelming majority are waiting for
this battle is raging all around the world (Score:2)
in chinatown flushing in new york i've seen communist loyalists and falun gong types get into physical fights on the street.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:NTD TV is run by Falun Gong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
NTDTV is not unbiased, but who is? Xinhua? What a joke. Even Western news agencies like BBC or CNN are biased, just not as overtly, and they don't really understand C
Re:NTD TV is run by Falun Gong (Score:4)
How is that any different from the Christian Science Monitor, one of the most objective news sources in the country?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Falun Gong has long tried to overthrow the current Chinese regime.
That's hilarious. The Chinese state fiercely promoted Falun Gong until it got jealous at its popularity and started locking them up, torturing them, etc. I think the totalitarian regime that thinks that a group of pacifist meditators is a threat to them is the crackpot here.
Satellite dishes are illegal??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I live in China. About 10km south of central Shanghai. I have two satellite dishes on my southern balcony, plenty of my neighbors have satellite dishes as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Disgusting apologist (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
the individual rights are weighed much more lightly compared with the greater societal good
Where the "greater societal good" means "our power must not be challenged". It's the same in any government that fights their way to power in the name of the people, and then becomes that which they were fighting against.
Re: (Score:2)
I would believe them more praiseworthy if they didn't persecute people attempting to hold the Chinese government accountable by its own laws. Complain about the government seizing your land and giving it to some developer? Start a lawsuit about shoddy construction standards on a local school (exposed by said school collapsing in an earthquake)?
Once you permit the government to make the decisions without question, the people that make up the government will do whatever they can get away with. Some might e
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Satellite dishes are illegal??? (Score:5, Informative)
Satellite dishes by themselves aren't illegal. What's illegal is private installation of satellite dish systems. Only the state-approved companies are allowed to install their dishes and decoder boxes, and equipment import/sale is heavily regulated. If private installations are found, you'll be fined and you'll have the option of removing it yourself or have it forcibly removed by public security. That sort of control effectively locks out anything you're not allowed to see.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I shouldn't have said it was effective, since plenty of people have illegal satellite installs, especially when they're so inconspicuously small nowadays. But there certainly is an effort to keep control.
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered why Chinese people couldn't just use satellites to get around the firewall, or to at least receive broadcasts. It amazes me that they're just plain illegal. I can't even imagine living in a country where the government has such a great need to control your thoughts, that they tell you that you can't even listen to what anyone from outside your country might be saying.
Iron curtain was like that. Listening to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty [wikipedia.org] was illegal in Poland.
Blasted, if the receiver is illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think someone is overestimating the effect of a satellite transmission into a country where satellite receivers are illegal.
It would be like flashing a school for the blind. Sure, it is fun but overall, don't expect much screaming and shouting... how do I know? Never you mind.
This Is a Non-Story: Chinese Firewall Easily Beat (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole discussion of a Chinese Firewall is purely academic. It takes only about $2/month to go around it.
The average income in China is about $5 a day. They aren't worried about foreigners getting on the unfiltered web.
Re: (Score:2)
But your number was incorrect. China earned in $12/day nationwide in 2004 [worldsalaries.org]. And, more apropos to the discussion, China's urban citizenry is brought home $20/day in 2004. It is beyond dispute that the average income in China has increased dramatically since 2004.
My point is that $2