Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
) File No: EB-10-KC-0122
Insight Consulting Group of Kansas
City, LLC ) NAL/Acct. No.: 201132560005
Kansas City, MO ) FRN: 0018534495
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER
Adopted: July 29, 2011 Released: July 29, 2011
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"),
we find that Insight Consulting Group of Kansas City, LLC ("Insight"),
operator of an Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure
("U-NII") transmission system in Kansas City, Missouri, apparently
willfully and repeatedly violated section 301 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and section 15.1(b) of the
Commission's rules ("Rules") by operating an intentional radiator not
in accordance with Part 15 of the Rules and without a license. We
conclude that Insight is apparently liable for forfeiture in the
amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000). We further order
Insight to submit a sworn statement certifying that it is now
operating its U-NII systems in compliance with FCC rules and
2. Part 15 of the Rules allows devices employing relatively low-level
radiofrequency ("RF") signals to be operated without individual
licenses, as long as their operation causes no harmful interference to
licensed services and the devices do not generate emissions or field
strength levels greater than a specified level. Such devices must be
authorized and operated in accordance with the Part 15 Rules. For
example, section 15.5 of the Rules provides that operation of an
intentional radiator must not cause harmful interference and, if
harmful interference occurs, the operation of the device must cease.
Operating a Part 15 device in a manner that is inconsistent with the
Part 15 Rules requires a license pursuant to section 301 of the Act.
Such operation without a license violates that provision.
3. As part of its ongoing coordination efforts with the Federal Aviation
Administration ("FAA"), the Enforcement Bureau received a complaint
about radio emissions causing interference to the FAA's Terminal
Doppler Weather Radar ("TDWR") installation serving the Kansas City
International Airport. TDWR installations exist at 45 major airports
in the United States and Puerto Rico and assist air traffic
controllers in detecting low-altitude wind shear that can pose a risk
4. On February 4, 2011, an agent from the Enforcement Bureau's Kansas
City Office ("Kansas City Office") monitored radio transmissions on
the frequencies 5540 MHz and 5600 MHz in the area known as downtown
Kansas City. These transmissions included a Service Set Identifier
("SSID") of "icg.oak.s2" and a Media Access Control ("MAC") address of
"00:15:6D:F4:3C:AA" for the transmissions observed on the frequency
5540 MHz and an SSID of "icg.oak-ne" and a MAC address of
"00:15:6D:E4:DD:B0" for transmissions observed on the frequency 5600
5. On February 18, 2011, agents from the Kansas City Office confirmed
using direction-finding techniques that Insight's U-NII transmitter on
the roof of the Oak Tower Building, 324 E. 11th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri, in the downtown Kansas City area, was operating on the
frequency 5600 MHz. An inspection of Insight's operation on that
building found that the transmitter was a Ubiquiti model Rocket M5
operating on the frequency 5600 MHz with its control settings
configured with an SSID of "icg.oak-ne" and a MAC address of
"00:15:6D:E4:DD:B0." The Rocket M5 model is certified for use as a
Part 15 intentional radiator only in the 5745-5825 MHz band and is not
certified as a U-NII intentional radiator. The agents conducted
additional tests and found that when the frequency for Insight's
device was changed from the frequency 5600 MHz, the interference to
the TDWR ceased, thereby confirming that Insight's operations were the
source of the interference. In addition to the operation on 5600 MHz,
agents from the Kansas City Office confirmed using direction-finding
techniques that Insight was operating a second Ubiquiti Rocket M5
transmitter on the frequency 5540 MHz and this second transmitter had
its control settings configured with an SSID of "icg.oak-s2" and a MAC
address of "00:15:6D:F4:3C:AA. Both of Insight's U-NII transmitters
had their configuration software set to a country code of "Compliance
Test" instead of the proper country code of "United States" and their
SSIDs and MAC addresses matched the information obtained on February
4, 2011. According to Commission records, Insight does not hold a
license to operate on either the frequency 5540 MHz or 5600 MHz from
this location in downtown Kansas City.
6. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"),
provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply
substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or
willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of
the Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission
thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Section
312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as the "conscious and deliberate
commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to
violate" the law. The legislative history to section 312(f)(1) of the
Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both section
312 and 503(b) of the Act and the Commission has so interpreted the
term in the section 503(b) context. The Commission may also assess a
forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.
The term "repeated" means the commission or omission of such act more
than once or for more than one day.
7. Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate
any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or
signals by radio within the United States except under and in
accordance with the Act and with a license. Part 15 of the Rules,
however, sets forth conditions under which intentional radiators may
operate without an individual license. Pursuant to section 15.1(b) of
the Rules, "the operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator
that is not in accordance with the regulations in [Part 15] must be
licensed pursuant to the provisions of section 301 of the
Communications Act...." Thus, if an intentional radiator fails to
comply with all of the applicable conditions set forth in Part 15 of
the Rules, it is no longer covered by the unlicensed provisions of
those Rules and must obtain an individual license pursuant to section
301 of the Act.
8. On February 4 and 18, 2011, as described above, agents from the Kansas
City Office observed Insight consciously operate two Part 15
intentional radiators, Ubiquity Rocket M5's, on the center frequencies
of 5540 MHz and 5600 MHz from the rooftop of a building in Kansas
City, Missouri. Those devices are not certified for use on either
frequency of 5540 MHz or 5600 MHz. Therefore, Insight's operations did
not comply either with the device's Equipment Authorization or Part 15
requirements and thus required a license. According to Commission
records, Insight does not hold a license to operate on the frequencies
5540 MHz or 5600 MHz in Kansas City, Missouri. Thus, based on the
evidence before us, we find that Insight apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the
Rules by operating unlicensed radio transmitters on February 4 and 18,
9. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section
1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for operation without an
instrument of authorization is $10,000. In assessing the monetary
forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory
factors set forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include
the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and
with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history
of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice
may require. Because Insight caused interference to the Kansas City
International Airport's TDWR and posed a safety hazard to air traffic,
we believe an upward adjustment in the forfeiture amount for Insight's
apparent unlicensed operation is warranted. Based on these factors, we
find that an upward adjustment from $10,000 to $17,000 is appropriate
for Insight's apparent unauthorized operation.
10. Although we could impose larger upward adjustments for Insight's
apparent violations, we decline to do so, based on the particular
circumstances of this case. We caution Insight and other U-NII service
providers, however, that we may do so in future cases if the
circumstances warrant or if our current approach does not serve as a
sufficient deterrent. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement,
section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors to the instant
case, we therefore conclude that Insight is apparently liable for a
forfeiture of $17,000 for violations of section 301 of the Act and
section 15.1(b) of the Rules.
11. Finally, we order Insight to submit a written statement signed under
penalty of perjury by an officer or director of the company stating
that the company is now operating its U-NII devices in compliance with
their Equipment Authorization and the Commission's Rules. This
statement must be provided to the Kansas City Office at the address
listed in paragraph 17 within thirty days of the release date of this
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311,
0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Insight Consulting Group of
Kansas City, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
FORFEITURE in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) for
violations of section 301 of the Act and section 15.1(b) of the Rules.
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules within thirty days of the release date of this
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, Insight
Consulting Group of Kansas City, LLC, SHALL PAY the full amount of the
proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty days of the release date of
this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, Insight
Consulting Group of Kansas City, LLC SHALL SUBMIT a sworn statement as
described in paragraph 11 to the Kansas City Office listed below.
15. Insight Consulting Group of Kansas City, LLC is HEREBY NOTIFIED that
its operation of a Ubiquiti Rocket M5 transceiver resulted in harmful
interference to the FAA's TDWR system that serves the Kansas City
International Airport. Insight Consulting Group of Kansas City, LLC
is HEREBY WARNED that any further operation of any U-NII device,
including the Ubiquiti Rocket M5 transceiver, on any frequency, and at
any location, that results in interference to the FAA's TDWR system
serving the Kansas City International Airport may be considered a
willful violation of section 333 of the Act, which prohibits willful
interference to any radio communication of any station licensed or
authorized under the Act or operated by the United States Government.
16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card, check or
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
Commission. The payment must include the Account Number and FRN
referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO
63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For
payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account
number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters
"FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full
payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial
Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554. If you have questions, please contact the
Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. If payment is made, Insight Consulting Group of
Kansas City, LLC will send electronic notification on the date said
payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov.
17. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written statement must
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau,
South Central Region, 520 NE Colbern Rd., Second Floor, Lees Summit,
MO 64086 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
The statement should also be emailed to SCR-Response@fcc.gov.
18. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and
objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
financial documentation submitted.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture and Order shall be sent by both Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Insight Consulting Group of
Kansas City, LLC, 600 E. Admiral Blvd., Suite 1201, Kansas City, MO
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
47 U.S.C. S: 301; see also 47 C.F.R. S: 15.407.
47 C.F.R. S: 15.1(b).
47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.1 et seq.
Revision of Part 15 of the Rules Regarding the Operation of Radio
Frequency Devices Without an Individual License, First Report and Order, 4
FCC Rcd 3493 (1989).
47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.1(a), 15.5.
47 C.F.R. S: 15.5.
47 C.F.R. S: 15.1(b).
MIT Lincoln Laboratories,
visited Jan. 26, 2011).
Agents from the Kansas City Office were unable to determine the FCC IDs
for the Rocket M5's in use. However, there are five FCC IDs associated
with Ubiquiti Rocket M5 devices: SWX-M5, SWX-M5B, SWX-M5G, SWX-M5L and
SWX-M5D. All of these FCC IDs are certified as Part 15C devices and are
authorized to operate only in the 5745 MHz - 5825 MHz band.
47 C.F.R. S: 15.403(s) (defining U-NII devices as "[i]ntentional radiators
operating in the frequency bands 5.15-5.35 GHz and 5.470-5.825 GHz that
use wideband digital modulation techniques and provide a wide array of
high data rate mobile and fixed communications for individuals,
businesses, and institutions."). Although Insight's devices were not
authorized to operate in the U-NII bands, they are subject to the U-NII
rules (47 C.F.R. 15.401-15.407) because Insight operated them as U-NII
devices on U-NII frequencies.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).
47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1).
H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) ("This provision
[inserted in section 312] defines the terms `willful' and `repeated' for
purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act
(e.g., section 503).... As defined ... `willful' means that the licensee
knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of whether there
was an intent to violate the law. `Repeated' means more than once, or
where the act is continuous, for more than one day. Whether an act is
considered to be `continuous' would depend upon the circumstances in each
case. The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in
sections 312 and 503, and are consistent with the Commission's application
of those terms ...").
See, e.g., Application for Review of Southern California Broadcasting Co.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) ("Southern
California Broadcasting Co.").
See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 10 (2001) ("Callais
Cablevision, Inc.") (proposing a forfeiture for, inter alia, a cable
television operator's repeated signal leakage).
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2), which also applies
to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under section 503(b) of
the Act, provides that "[t]he term `repeated', when used with reference to
the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of
such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous,
for more than one day."
47 U.S.C. S: 301.
See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 15.1 et seq.
47 C.F.R. S: 15.1(b).
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
The base forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000. See 47 C.F.R. S:
47 U.S.C. S:S: 301, 503(b), 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80,
47 U.S.C. S: 333.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.
(...continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1314
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1314