More From Pahrump, Nevada

[Desert Ear]

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Mar-14-Wed-2007/news/13133393.html

 

[WCWalker]

Harvey, thanks for posting this link. I will add it to my website at the next update.

 

[Desert Ear]

Go for it, William!

We's fightin' mad!

GRRRRRR!!!!

 

[PaulBWalkerJr]

$250,000? I've had several qualified individuals tell me , as is right now, KNYE is worth at least $400,000.

And with the prices some people have paid for FM Construction Permits in auctions, the cost of the permit, building the studio, buying equipment, putting up a tower, etc.. probably far exceeds $500,000.

 

[jcolletta275]

"It's a money thing," my expletive!

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's start licensing every pirate station currently in existence, no matter where they are, no matter who they're interfering with (including ATC communications), no matter how much power they run and no matter if they're airing decent or indecent programming. Let's just let everyone have free reign over the whole broadcast spectrum. When this jackball can't get his signal out because there are twenty different stations operating on the same frequency within a twenty mile radius around his own, then maybe he'll figure out just what's at stake here.

And the FCC thinks this moron deserves a license?

 

[Grrrradio]

It's Goldfield, Nevada, for crying out loud. There is damn near NOTHING on that dial, as even a cursory Radio-Locator search will reveal; I can't possibly see what this fellow would be interfering WITH. What's more, I can't possibly fathom that today's privately-nationalized media (is that really any better than Communism?) would ever focus on such a small community, even though they're using spectrum administrated by the government as a public trust and even though all citizens are theoretically equal in the eyes of the law. In other words, the citizens of Goldfield are no less deserving of an opportunity for locally focused media than are Los Angelenos or Bostonians or Minneapolitans... but none of the huge media conglomerates taking this to court are providing that service at the moment. The Goldfield station isn't even posing competition to them, yet they still think they have standing to appear in court because the FCC chose to authorize him? These companies have suffered absolutely no injury in fact due to the granting of this STA -- no actual case or controversy currently stands -- which makes it fairly clear that these companies aren't suing in order to protect their (concededly legitimate) interests in the value of their own licenses, but rather, trying to set the groundwork for complete media domination. They don't want merely to "compete", as they so often claim when it suits them to employ the politically popular language of the "free market"... but to control absolutely everything. It's a difference we frequently lose sight of in this society of increasingly centralized corporate ownership.

(Incidentally -- as the FCC is the one charged with administering the public trust of the airwaves -- it's entirely within their rights to hand out STAs to unlicensed operators if they see it as contributing to the public policy goals with which they have been tasked. As they're the ones in charge of spectrum management, they can use their authority more leniently if they wish. There is no duty upon the FCC to roll over and do whatever Big Money demands of it.)

 

[Black_Shire]

It's Goldfield, Nevada, for crying out loud. There is damn near NOTHING on that dial, as even a cursory Radio-Locator search will reveal; I can't possibly see what this fellow would be interfering WITH. What's more, I can't possibly fathom that today's privately-nationalized media (is that really any better than Communism?) would ever focus on such a small community, even though they're using spectrum administrated by the government as a public trust and even though all citizens are theoretically equal in the eyes of the law. In other words, the citizens of Goldfield are no less deserving of an opportunity for locally focused media than are Los Angelenos or Bostonians or Minneapolitans... but none of the huge media conglomerates taking this to court are providing that service at the moment. The Goldfield station isn't even posing competition to them, yet they still think they have standing to appear in court because the FCC chose to authorize him? These companies have suffered absolutely no injury in fact due to the granting of this STA -- no actual case or controversy currently stands -- which makes it fairly clear that these companies aren't suing in order to protect their (concededly legitimate) interests in the value of their own licenses, but rather, trying to set the groundwork for complete media domination. They don't want merely to "compete", as they so often claim when it suits them to employ the politically popular language of the "free market"... but to control absolutely everything. It's a difference we frequently lose sight of in this society of increasingly centralized corporate ownership.

(Incidentally -- as the FCC is the one charged with administering the public trust of the airwaves -- it's entirely within their rights to hand out STAs to unlicensed operators if they see it as contributing to the public policy goals with which they have been tasked. As they're the ones in charge of spectrum management, they can use their authority more leniently if they wish. There is no duty upon the FCC to roll over and do whatever Big Money demands of it.)

One practical and legal way around this problem is for these small communities to apply for AM TIS (Travelers Information Station) licenses, and many small towns and hamlets have in fact done so. Particularly in the Western states, quite a few small communities have set up FCC-licensed TISs to broadcast wildfire, flood, and other disaster information advisories to their residents. The rest of the time, these low-power AM stations serve as community radio stations. While the TIS rules do have certain restrictions on content, the rules are written loosely enough that creative TIS licensees can get around most of the restrictions while remaining legal.

For example, paid advertising is prohibited on TISs, but they can mention businesses (rental car companies, airline gates, hotels, etc.) that would be helpful to visitors as long as the TIS licensees receive no fees from the businesses for doing so. Also, TISs cannot operate as music radio stations, but music may be used as background for voice announcements and as segment introduction and exit music as long as the music is either in the public domain or if the artist gives written permission for the TIS to use it.

These little stations broadcast local talk programs, local news, local weather advisories (often re-broadcasts of NOAA Weather Radio, which is perfectly legal on TISs), high school football games, rodeos, fishing tournaments, rifle competitions, and other events of local interest. Operated carefully and thoughtfully, they operate as full-service community radio stations while remaining within the law.


-- Black Shire

 

[jcolletta275]

It's Goldfield, Nevada, for crying out loud. There is damn near NOTHING on that dial, as even a cursory Radio-Locator search will reveal; I can't possibly see what this fellow would be interfering WITH.

That's not the point. This sets a bad precedent: pirates can now be considered legitimate broadcasters and may be deemed deserving of full-blown licenses... which, as has been pointed out already, is against the FCC's own rules to begin with. That rule is there for a reason. It's not to be ignored simply because there's no interference in the area in question.

What's more, I can't possibly fathom that today's privately-nationalized media (is that really any better than Communism?) would ever focus on such a small community, even though they're using spectrum administrated by the government as a public trust and even though all citizens are theoretically equal in the eyes of the law. In other words, the citizens of Goldfield are no less deserving of an opportunity for locally focused media than are Los Angelenos or Bostonians or Minneapolitans... but none of the huge media conglomerates taking this to court are providing that service at the moment.

No one in this argument has said Goldfield isn't deserving of their own radio station. I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone on this board is all for local service. But again, that's not the issue. The point being made is twofold: A) this guy has been operating illegally, which is something he should be fined and have his equipment taken away for (which is what the law says should be done, I'm not pulling that out of thin air... and it's already happened once), and B) the law also says that he is not eligible for a broadcast license ever due to his operation of an unlicensed, illiegal station. This is pretty open-and-shut, there's no room for argument. That's why those of us who are angry about the FCC's decision are angry: they're breaking their own rules.

The Goldfield station isn't even posing competition to them, yet they still think they have standing to appear in court because the FCC chose to authorize him?

Again, you're looking at it from entirely the wrong perspective. This isn't about Goldfield or any competition (or lack thereof) they're facing in the town. This is about precedent. It opens the door for anyone who wishes to set up an illegal station, claim they're serving the public interest and be granted a license... which, at some point in time, could very well not just compete but interfere with existing stations (as I'm afraid that's just how incompetent the FCC has become). The big companies know this... so do the little ones. I'm sure the guy in Pahrump who's been fighting for the allocation there in Goldfield for the past seven years as the article mentions isn't too happy with the situation either. He's not one of the Big Boys... he's an Internet broadcaster who's been trying to get a more prominent local voice on the airwaves than he has now online. This damages his efforts as well.

These companies have suffered absolutely no injury in fact due to the granting of this STA -- no actual case or controversy currently stands -- which makes it fairly clear that these companies aren't suing in order to protect their (concededly legitimate) interests in the value of their own licenses, but rather, trying to set the groundwork for complete media domination. They don't want merely to "compete", as they so often claim when it suits them to employ the politically popular language of the "free market"... but to control absolutely everything. It's a difference we frequently lose sight of in this society of increasingly centralized corporate ownership.

I have no argument with you there, however again, that's not what's at stake here. While I'm sure that's on their minds, the more important issue, as I've pointed out, is precedent. While I may disagree with corporate radio's other reasons for going on the attack here, they're absolutely right to do so on that one basis.

(Incidentally -- as the FCC is the one charged with administering the public trust of the airwaves -- it's entirely within their rights to hand out STAs to unlicensed operators if they see it as contributing to the public policy goals with which they have been tasked. As they're the ones in charge of spectrum management, they can use their authority more leniently if they wish. There is no duty upon the FCC to roll over and do whatever Big Money demands of it.)

No, actually, they aren't wihtin their rights. They haven't changed the rule they've broken, and until they do, what they've done here remains as wrong as the violation of any other law. Just because they're the ones who came up with the law in the first place doesn't mean that it becomes invalid if they're the ones who break it.

 

[Black_Shire]

If I may take the liberty of boiling Josh C.'s post down to its essence, he is saying that the FCC (and by implication, the rest of the government) should FOLLOW ITS OWN RULES and not ignore them based on public opinion or pressure from legislators.

If we go down that path, we will eventually cease to be a nation based on law & order and will become a country with a government under which what you can do (or not do) is based on who you know (or don't know) in government instead of being based upon what the law says for everyone.

If we don't like a given law, rule, or regulation, we should work to change it or repeal it while working within the existing legal framework, but while it remains in force we should (however grudgingly) obey it. Getting the ear of a legislator who then pressures the agency in question to ignore its own rule is taking a step toward a government based upon unequal patronage instead of equal treatment under the law.


-- Black Shire

 

[Grrrradio]

I have to admit both of the last posters have raised some very good points. But what about the matter of agency discretion? The FCC is one of the more traditionally independent agencies (in the sense of having multiple commissioners and directing the formation of policy, rather than being a mere vehicle to exercise the will of the standing Presidential administration like the Cabinet agencies.) As a matter of law and of practical politics, administrative agencies have far more discretion in promulgating rules (and, by implication, changing them or excepting to them) than do legislatures with respect to laws. In other words, the FCC arguably has at least some "wiggle room" to make the decisions it believes will advance the Communications Act of 1934's broad goal of regulating the frequency spectrum in the public interest. Indeed, by the very terms of its creation, an agency is delegated at least some authority by Congress to put the statutory goals into practice. Thus, the situation isn't quite as close to the "government of men rather than laws" which Black_Shire (albeit reasonably) fears. In fact, so long as the statute creating the agency is not found unconstitutional under the non-delegation doctrine -- i.e., so long as Congress has given the agency enough of an "intelligible principle" upon which to base its operations -- the operation of an agency pursuant to a Congressional statute granting it discretion would seem to be a perfect example of government by laws (i.e. by the acts of elected legislators.)

Now, I admit that I haven't delved into the Commission's own rules to see how much discretion the FCC in particular has been given. However, given the complicated and technical nature of spectrum allocation and other aspects of electronic communication, I'd hazard a guess that the statute and at least some of the agency's own rules provide, by their own terms, for the Commission to make exemptions and exceptions where it believes they will serve the public interest. I'm not sure if the rules surrounding STAs do this... but as a general proposition, I think it's reasonable to say that an independent administrative agency -- given its partial policy-making role as delegated to it by Congress -- has some room to move in its decision-making. And if the move happens to be in the direction of issuing a license or other transmitting authority -- which is, after all, one of the basic functions of the FCC -- then, by definition, that station is no longer a pirate!

On matters of "standing," perhaps I could have been somewhat more clear. I was using the word in a technical sense, as a legal term of art with a very specific meaning. "Standing" refers to the requirements that any would-be litigant must meet in order even to have its case heard in court (or in an administrative hearing.) Generally speaking, in order to have standing, you must have suffered some kind of actual injury -- i.e., been set back by the events about which you wish to sue. The FCC in particular has been reluctant to view speculative concerns about "what might happen in the future", or general interest as "one who's in the business", as a sufficient basis for standing. (If it did, you could have, say, a Cumulus station clogging up the FCC's case files, complaining that the FCC wasn't tough enough on the Clear Channel station across town after finding shortcomings in its public file, and -- lions and tigers and bears, oh my -- what would happen if we started being that lax on everyone?)

In other words, Kant's "what if everybody did it?" categorical imperative doesn't appear to mix very well with administrative standing. We can't look at a single tree and predict "the downfall of the entire forest if a thousand other similar trees happen to show up." Big-picture concerns about the Future of the Business are important, but big-picture concerns have to be thought of over a big-picture amount of time... and the whole essence of the FCC's job as an administrative agency is to keep all those big-picture concerns in balance as the months and years pass by. Even if I'm sometimes skeptical of their political motivations (as I am of anyone in any kind of power, anywhere), I certainly trust the technical knowledge of the Commissioners enough to know that they'd be able to stop any "slippery slope pirate-grandfathering" problem before it gathered enough momentum to really damage the nation's airwaves.

(Incidentally... I left this out of the main portion of the post because I feared coming off as too snarky... but are we not ALREADY ruled by a government under which the big decisions are made based on who knows whom? The patronage and revolving-door connections (a la Halliburton); the continual recycling of top officials from a few powerful families, political circles, and East Coast organizations; and the entire structure of our campaign finance system, in which a few big corporate donors can bundle tens of millions of dollars straight to their investment... er, legislator... of choice -- all ought to make it painfully and abundantly clear.)

 

[Black_Shire]

I am admittedly not very familiar with the legal limits of the FCC's ability to exercise discretion. If the FCC can do things such as granting the STA without violating its charter, then I have no problem with it. I would love to see all of the currently "station-less" small communities get their own local radio stations.

And yes, our government is already too much of a "government of men rather than laws" patronage racket for my liking, but it could be (and has been) much worse. During the robber baron era, there were Senators and Congressmen who were literally bought & paid for by the railroads, coal mining companies, and oil companies. While big business still influences our legislators today, we thankfully no longer have Senators and Congressmen whose campaigns are financed solely by individual companies or industries.


-- Black Shire

 

[rfry]

...For example, paid advertising is prohibited on TISs, but they can mention businesses (rental car companies, airline gates, hotels, etc.) that would be helpful to visitors as long as the TIS licensees receive no fees from the businesses for doing so. Also, TISs cannot operate as music radio stations, but music may be used as background for voice announcements and as segment introduction and exit music as long as the music is either in the public domain or if the artist gives written permission for the TIS to use it.

TIS stations operating as stated above would not meet the FCC Rules for their allowed program content, would they? Here is a clip from the Rules:

(7) Travelers Information Stations shall transmit only noncommercial
voice information pertaining to traffic and road conditions, traffic
hazard and travel advisories, directions, availability of lodging, rest
stops and service stations, and descriptions of local points of
interest. It is not permissible to identify the commercial name of any
business establishment whose service may be available within or outside
the coverage area of a Travelers Information Station. However, to
facilitate announcements concerning departures/arrivals and parking
areas at air, train, and bus terminals, the trade name identification of
carriers is permitted.

 

[radiopilot]

"It's a money thing," my expletive!

You are right! The NAB can't make a cent on the station in question and yet does not want this station to exist even though the FCC is the final word on who gets the STA or not. The FCC makes the rules and only they can play with their rules and laws and not the NAB lining the pockets of the FCC!

[/quote]
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's start licensing every pirate station currently in existence, no matter where they are, no matter who they're interfering with (including ATC communications), no matter how much power they run and no matter if they're airing decent or indecent programming. Let's just let everyone have free reign over the whole broadcast spectrum. When this jackball can't get his signal out because there are twenty different stations operating on the same frequency within a twenty mile radius around his own, then maybe he'll figure out just what's at stake here.

And the FCC thinks this moron deserves a license?
[/quote]

The only morons are the NAB and their programming, you say indecent programming but when Howard Stern and other shock jocks were on the air (some still including some right wing crap) they were on licensed stations!

Sorry but I believe this station should be on the air and the FCC has a right to give them an STA and when the STA is up they should grant the license maybe not to him but another person in the station.

Simple... where is the NAB in any fianancial crisis over this, they already have trouble with no one listening to the non-existant programming they have now.

The NAB has been in the pockets of the FCC for a long time.... It''s time they gave that money back to the community and send the NAB packing!

 

[Black_Shire]

...For example, paid advertising is prohibited on TISs, but they can mention businesses (rental car companies, airline gates, hotels, etc.) that would be helpful to visitors as long as the TIS licensees receive no fees from the businesses for doing so. Also, TISs cannot operate as music radio stations, but music may be used as background for voice announcements and as segment introduction and exit music as long as the music is either in the public domain or if the artist gives written permission for the TIS to use it.

TIS stations operating as stated above would not meet the FCC Rules for their allowed program content, would they? Here is a clip from the Rules:

(7) Travelers Information Stations shall transmit only noncommercial
voice information pertaining to traffic and road conditions, traffic
hazard and travel advisories, directions, availability of lodging, rest
stops and service stations, and descriptions of local points of
interest. It is not permissible to identify the commercial name of any
business establishment whose service may be available within or outside
the coverage area of a Travelers Information Station. However, to
facilitate announcements concerning departures/arrivals and parking
areas at air, train, and bus terminals, the trade name identification of
carriers is permitted.

That clip from the TIS rules says what I wrote above. I think it comes down to the exact legal definitions of the terms "commercial name" and "trade name." (In Black's Law Dictionary, words and terms don't always have quite the same definitions as in the Webster or Oxford dictionaries.)

I have heard TIS messages at airports mention things such as "The Delta Airlines gates are gates 5 through 7" and "The Avis rental car lot is at Concourse B." Strictly speaking, I imagine the FCC might frown upon that. But since most airports have the same nation-wide (and international) airlines and rental car companies and the people there are a "captive audience" so to speak, it probably wouldn't induce them to act unless the TIS announcements preferentially directed listeners to choose one company over another.


-- Black Shire

 

[jcolletta275]

"It's a money thing," my expletive!

You are right! The NAB can't make a cent on the station in question and yet does not want this station to exist even though the FCC is the final word on who gets the STA or not. The FCC makes the rules and only they can play with their rules and laws and not the NAB lining the pockets of the FCC!

That's just my point: the FCC hasn't changed the rule, and until they do, they've broken it. I agree with you about the NAB... they don't want the station to exist, but while their motives are wrong, I'd have to side with them due to the fact that the licensing of the station remains an illegal act.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's start licensing every pirate station currently in existence, no matter where they are, no matter who they're interfering with (including ATC communications), no matter how much power they run and no matter if they're airing decent or indecent programming. Let's just let everyone have free reign over the whole broadcast spectrum. When this jackball can't get his signal out because there are twenty different stations operating on the same frequency within a twenty mile radius around his own, then maybe he'll figure out just what's at stake here.

And the FCC thinks this moron deserves a license?

The only morons are the NAB and their programming, you say indecent programming but when Howard Stern and other shock jocks were on the air (some still including some right wing crap) they were on licensed stations!

I use that term only as it's become a point of argument in various other pirate radio cases. Take a trip down to South Florida sometime... the pirate radio capital of the country... and you'll easily find that a good chunk of pirate broadcasters are airing what many would consider to be "indecent programming." Granted, I disagree with the concept of decency laws... and I've been up and down my stance on that on these very boards many a time. But if the FCC is going to use that as an argument against pirate stations, we have every right to bring it up in this case.

Sorry but I believe this station should be on the air and the FCC has a right to give them an STA and when the STA is up they should grant the license maybe not to him but another person in the station.

Like I said before, I (and I'm sure I speak for most people here) have no problem whatsoever with putting a radio station in Goldfield. However, as you say, this man should not be given the license, and I don't believe anyone currently involved with the station should be either. They're all a part of the station, and none of them should qualify. Then again, I don't believe that's how the law is written, so if someone from within the station is granted the license, then that's that. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Simple... where is the NAB in any fianancial crisis over this, they already have trouble with no one listening to the non-existant programming they have now.

I agree with you 100% on that.

The NAB has been in the pockets of the FCC for a long time.... It''s time they gave that money back to the community and send the NAB packing!

Again, I agree... but the FCC should not be breaking it's own rules in order to accomplish that.

 

[radiopilot]

"It's a money thing," my expletive!

You are right! The NAB can't make a cent on the station in question and yet does not want this station to exist even though the FCC is the final word on who gets the STA or not. The FCC makes the rules and only they can play with their rules and laws and not the NAB lining the pockets of the FCC!

That's just my point: the FCC hasn't changed the rule, and until they do, they've broken it. I agree with you about the NAB... they don't want the station to exist, but while their motives are wrong, I'd have to side with them due to the fact that the licensing of the station remains an illegal act.

Can't agree with you there, the FCC is the 'final word' on who gets an STA and who doesn't, or whether a conglomorate corporation recieves a license or not!

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's start licensing every pirate station currently in existence, no matter where they are, no matter who they're interfering with (including ATC communications), no matter how much power they run and no matter if they're airing decent or indecent programming. Let's just let everyone have free reign over the whole broadcast spectrum. When this jackball can't get his signal out because there are twenty different stations operating on the same frequency within a twenty mile radius around his own, then maybe he'll figure out just what's at stake here.

And the FCC thinks this moron deserves a license?

The only morons are the NAB and their programming, you say indecent programming but when Howard Stern and other shock jocks were on the air (some still including some right wing crap) they were on licensed stations!

I use that term only as it's become a point of argument in various other pirate radio cases. Take a trip down to South Florida sometime... the pirate radio capital of the country... and you'll easily find that a good chunk of pirate broadcasters are airing what many would consider to be "indecent programming." Granted, I disagree with the concept of decency laws... and I've been up and down my stance on that on these very boards many a time. But if the FCC is going to use that as an argument against pirate stations, we have every right to bring it up in this case.

South Florida is a whole different animal as there are so many radio stations in almost every community of service that there is no need for pirates so in that case I agree with you totally.

Sorry but I believe this station should be on the air and the FCC has a right to give them an STA and when the STA is up they should grant the license maybe not to him but another person in the station.

Like I said before, I (and I'm sure I speak for most people here) have no problem whatsoever with putting a radio station in Goldfield. However, as you say, this man should not be given the license, and I don't believe anyone currently involved with the station should be either. They're all a part of the station, and none of them should qualify. Then again, I don't believe that's how the law is written, so if someone from within the station is granted the license, then that's that. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

The FCC issues an NOUA, NAL, NOV only to one individual or if a corporation. In this case the FCC had issued only a violation for Moses the operator of the station, therefore anyone not on the NOUA or NAL that is on the radio station staff can be the ones to hold the LPFM license or CP when the FCC approves it during the next window.

Simple... where is the NAB in any fianancial crisis over this, they already have trouble with no one listening to the non-existant programming they have now.

I agree with you 100% on that.

The NAB has been in the pockets of the FCC for a long time.... It''s time they gave that money back to the community and send the NAB packing!

Again, I agree... but the FCC should not be breaking it's own rules in order to accomplish that.

In reality I doubt giving this station a CP or a LPFM license just as the Prometius Project got their start along with plenty of other LPFM's is going to break this country or bring havoc to society as others suggest.

 

[dbdigital]

Pity the poor FCC. The Dems in Congress have lately been rapping the agency's knuckles hard, accusing it of being too slow (although not so slow that it can't respond to the jingle of corporate money) and too inept at administrating the public airwaves. Chairman Martin has been painted as little more than a Bush lackey and a lightweight...all of which is true, of course.

As a way of countering these accusations, the FCC has taken several actions including throwing out a few bones, like granting an STA for this guy's station in Pahrump and opening a special LPFM window for the good people of Kilgore, TX. Love it or hate it, the agency is bending its own rules in the name of political expediency (and possibly survival). As such, I don't think the other station's complaint will go anywhere. Besides, the STA is only good for, what, about 90 days?

In a way, though, I'm glad to see it happen for each bend of the rule creates a precedent which can be cited for any future actions which would be deemed by the FCC as out of the ordinary. Some of those future actions may even be worthy of it.

db

 

[jcolletta275]

But when it's not worthy of it and the FCC grants it anyway? What then? That's what I'm worried about... because besides being slow on everything except acting on the promise of money, the FCC has become incredibly inept when it comes to technical issues. I have no doubt in my mind they would allow one of those "special exceptions" to be short-spaced or moved in to the detriment of another, already existing station. I can almost promise that it would happen.

 

[Desert Ear]

To DBDIGITAL

The STA didn't go to Pahrump, it went to the illegal pirate in Goldfield.

The Pahrump station will continue with legal broadcasting on the internet and via Part 15 until it can apply for a license.

DE

 

[dbdigital]

Re: To DBDIGITAL

The STA didn't go to Pahrump, it went to the illegal pirate in Goldfield.

The Pahrump station will continue with legal broadcasting on the internet and via Part 15 until it can apply for a license.

DE

You're right. Sorry about that.

db