Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554


                                                 )                           
     In the Matter of                                                        
                                                 )   File No.: EB-07-SE-310  
     Cardinal Broadband, LLC,                                                
                                                 )   NAL/Acct. No.:          
     aka Sovereign Telecommunications,               200832100069            
                                                 )                           
     a wholly owned subsidiary of Cardinal           FRN: 0018035063         
     Communications, Inc.                        )                           
                                                                             
                                                 )                           


                                forfeiture ORDER

   Adopted: July 13, 2012 Released: July 13, 2012

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Forfeiture Order, we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount
       of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to Cardinal Broadband, LLC,
       aka Sovereign Telecommunications, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
       Cardinal Communications, Inc., for its willful violation of Section
       1.17(a)(2) of the rules (Rules) of the Federal Communication
       Commission (FCC or Commission). The noted violation involved
       Cardinal's provision of incorrect material factual information related
       to Cardinal's failure to provide E911 service to dozens of its
       customers at the Millstone condominium community in Golden, Colorado
       for more than two months. We conclude that Cardinal provided the
       information to the Commission without a reasonable basis for believing
       that the information was correct and not misleading.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. On August 15, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) issued a Notice of
       Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Cardinal in the amount of $25,000
       for its apparent violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by
       providing incorrect material factual information to the Commission
       without a reasonable basis for believing that the information was
       correct and not misleading. In a matter closely related to the Section
       1.17 NAL,  the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for
       Forfeiture to Cardinal in the amount of $25,000 for its apparent
       failure to provide E911 service in willful and repeated violation of
       Section 9.5(b) of the Commission's Rules.  In the VoIP E911 NAL, the
       Bureau determined that Cardinal was subject to the requirements of
       Section 9.5 as a provider of interconnected VoIP services and that
       Cardinal failed to provide compliant E911 service.

    3. In the Section 1.17 NAL, the Bureau concluded that Cardinal's
       statement in the company's response to the Bureau's initial letter of
       inquiry that "[t]he service Cardinal resells does not `require a
       broadband connection from the user's location' ... [or] `Internet
       protocol-compatible customer premises equipment'" (CPE), and thus does
       not meet two of the four criteria for interconnected VoIP service, was
       incorrect material factual information. Specifically, the Bureau found
       that, based on Cardinal's publicly available marketing material and
       its subsequent admission that it provides interconnected VoIP service,
       Cardinal failed to exercise reasonable diligence to determine the
       accuracy of the information it provided, and therefore, at the time it
       made the representations to the Bureau, Cardinal did not have a
       reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and
       not misleading.

    4. On October 10, 2008, Cardinal filed a single response to both the
       Section 1.17 NAL and the VoIP E911 NAL. In this Consolidated NAL
       Response, Cardinal disputes the conclusion that it violated Section
       1.17(a)(2) of the Rules. Alternatively, Cardinal requests cancellation
       or reduction of the proposed forfeiture on the ground that payment
       would pose a financial hardship.

   III. Discussion

    5. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       (Act), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement.
       In examining Cardinal's Consolidated NAL Response, Section 503(b) of
       the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature,
       circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect
       to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
       offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
       require. As discussed below, we have considered Cardinal's response in
       light of these statutory factors and find that neither cancellation
       nor reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount is warranted.

   A. Provision of incorrect material factual information

    6. Section 1.17(a) of the Rules provides, in pertinent part, that in any
       investigation, no person shall:

   (1) In any written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide
   material factual information that is incorrect or intentionally omit
   material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual
   statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading; and

   (2) In any written statement of fact, provide material factual information
   that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to
   prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect
   or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such
   material factual statement is correct and not misleading.

    7. Any person who has received a letter of inquiry from the Commission or
       its staff or is otherwise the subject of a Commission investigation
       must comply with the requirements of Section 1.17 of the Rules. In
       expanding the scope of Section 1.17 in 2003 to include written
       statements made without a reasonable basis for believing the
       statements are correct and not misleading, the Commission explained
       that it intended this requirement to clarify the obligations of
       persons dealing with the Commission, ensure that they exercised due
       diligence in preparing written submissions, and enhance the
       effectiveness of the Commission's enforcement efforts. Thus, even
       absent an intent to deceive, a false statement may constitute an
       actionable violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules if provided without
       a reasonable basis for believing that the material factual information
       it contains is correct and not misleading.

    8. In its Consolidated NAL Response, Cardinal argues that no forfeiture
       should be imposed because the company's statement in its Initial LOI
       response that "[t]he service Cardinal resells does not `require a
       broadband connection from the user's location' ... [or] `Internet
       protocol-compatible [CPE]'" was accurate in light of the way that
       Cardinal provides service to its customers. Although Cardinal's
       Consolidated NAL Response does not explain the basis for this claim,
       we can glean the company's apparent rationale from prior filings. In
       its January 7 LOI Response, for example, Cardinal reiterated that the
       service it resells does not require either a broadband connection or
       Internet Protocol-compatible CPE, noting that what it "did not make
       clear" in its Initial LOI Response was that the "service" the company
       resells includes both interconnected VoIP and conventional analog
       telephone service and that customers who elect to use conventional
       analog telephone service do not need either a broadband connection or
       Internet Protocol-compatible CPE.

    9. At the outset, we note that the Bureau previously considered and
       properly rejected Cardinal's argument that it is not an interconnected
       VoIP service provider because it also sells Qwest analog telephone
       service, a service that does not require either a broadband connection
       or Internet Protocol-compatible CPE. In the VoIP E911 NAL, the Bureau
       stated that "[c]onventional analog telephone service and
       interconnected VoIP service are distinct services[,]" and that
       "Cardinal's status as an interconnected VoIP service provider is
       unaffected by the fact that it also offers conventional analog
       telephone service."

   10. Moreover, we find that Cardinal's unqualified statement in its Initial
       LOI Response that the service Cardinal resells does not "require" a
       broadband connection or Internet Protocol-compatible CPE was both
       inaccurate and misleading. The critical question at issue in the LOI
       was whether Cardinal's VoIP offering met the thresholds in Section
       9.5(a), specifically, whether a broadband connection and Internet
       Protocol-compatible CPE were required in order to utilize Cardinal's
       VoIP service. Cardinal subsequently admitted that its VoIP service
       requires these capabilities. For the reasons set forth in the Section
       1.17 NAL, we affirm the finding that Cardinal did not have a
       reasonable basis for claiming otherwise or for believing that the
       information it initially provided was correct and not misleading.

   11. Cardinal appears to rely on the fact that it resells two different
       services (interconnected VoIP and conventional analog telephone) and
       that one of those services (conventional analog telephone) does not
       require a broadband connection or Internet Protocol-compatible CPE.
       However, the ability of Cardinal's customers to choose a non-VoIP
       offering is not relevant to the nature and requirements of its VoIP
       service. Indeed, to find for Cardinal we would have to conclude that
       Cardinal's customers who chose the VoIP offering were not "required"
       to have the broadband connection or Internet Protocol-compatible CPE
       necessary to that service because they could have chosen analog
       service instead. This argument is counterintuitive. In addition, if
       Cardinal had exercised even a minimum of diligence, such as by
       reviewing its own marketing materials, the VoIP E911 Order or Section
       9.3 of the Rules, it could have avoided the inaccuracies in its
       statement. By failing to either perform reasonable due diligence or to
       adequately explain its statement, Cardinal omitted from its initial
       LOI Response "information that is necessary to prevent any material
       factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading,"
       precisely the outcome that Section 1.17 was intended to prevent.

   12. Further, we disagree with Cardinal's contention that that the proposed
       forfeiture should be cancelled or reduced because Ronald Bass, the
       Cardinal employee who submitted the company's Initial LOI Response,
       believed at that time that the response was accurate. As noted in the
       Section 1.17 NAL, even absent intent to deceive, a false statement may
       constitute an actionable violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules if
       provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the material
       factual information it contains is correct and not misleading. As a
       consequence, the assertion that Mr. Bass believed the response to be
       truthful, even if accurate, is not enough for Cardinal to avoid
       liability under Section 1.17. In this regard, we note that Cardinal's
       acknowledgment in the Consolidated NAL Response that Mr. Bass,
       Cardinal Communications, Inc.'s Principal Accounting Officer, was
       "probably not the best person to handle the response since Mr. Bass is
       an accountant and not a telecom employee" underscores the Bureau's
       previous finding that Cardinal failed to exercise reasonable due
       diligence to ensure that the statements the company made in its
       Initial LOI Response were truthful, accurate, and not misleading.

   13. Cardinal's provision of incorrect material factual information is
       especially egregious given the vital public safety matter at issue.
       The Commission has found that violations of E911 requirements are
       serious, noting the critical function these requirements serve in
       promoting and safeguarding life and property. As the Commission has
       stated, "E911 service saves lives and property by helping emergency
       services personnel do their jobs more quickly and efficiently."
       Moreover, according to the complainant, local emergency officials
       considered the situation so dire that they distributed flyers warning
       of the lack of 911 service and directing residents to use the police
       department's regular number in case of emergency. Given the critical
       importance of providing consumers the ability to call 911, Cardinal
       should have exercised greater due diligence in preparing its written
       submissions regarding its provision of E911.

   B. Lack of a basis for reduction of the proposed forfeiture

   14. Finally, Cardinal asserts that payment of the proposed forfeiture
       would pose a financial hardship. The Commission has determined that,
       in general, gross revenues are the best indicator of an ability to pay
       a forfeiture. In addition, and as detailed in the instructions
       provided in the Section 1.17 NAL, "[c]laims of inability to pay should
       be supported by tax returns or other financial statements prepared
       under generally accepted accounting procedures for the most recent
       three year period." Cardinal only submitted financial statements
       covering the eight-month period January through August 2008. Moreover,
       Cardinal's revenues, as reflected in the limited financial statements
       it did submit, would not warrant a reduction of the forfeiture amount.

   iV. ordering clauses

   15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules, Cardinal
       Broadband, LLC IS LIABLE FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five
       thousand dollars ($25,000) for providing incorrect material factual
       information to the Commission in willful violation of Section
       1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.

   16. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules within ten (10) calendar days after the
       release date of this Forfeiture Order.  If the forfeiture is not paid
       within the period specified, the case may be referred to the U.S.
       Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture pursuant to
       Section 504(a) of the Act.  Cardinal shall send electronic
       notification of payment to Josh Zeldis at Josh.Zeldis@fcc.gov and
       Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment is
       made.

   17. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
       transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and
       FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed
       FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing
       the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
       sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
       (payment type code).   Below are additional instructions you should
       follow based on the form of payment you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. 

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. 

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101. 

   18. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
       to:  Chief Financial Officer-Financial Operations, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C.  20554.  If you have questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
       phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. 

   19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture  Order shall be
       sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested
       to Jon Bartlett, President, Cardinal Broadband, LLC, 2150 West 6th
       Avenue, Suite H, Broomfield, CO 80020 and to Michael Wasik, Chairman
       and CEO, Roomlinx, Inc., 2150 West 6th Avenue, Suite H, Broomfield, CO
       80020.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   Cardinal Broadband, LLC (Cardinal) was formed in 2005 as a Colorado
   limited liability company. On October 1, 2010, pursuant to an acquisition
   by Roomlinx, Inc. of Cardinal's parent, Roomlinx, Inc. became the sole
   member of Cardinal. See Roomlinx, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 50
   (Mar. 30, 2012).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a)(2).

   Cardinal Broadband, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23
   FCC Rcd 12233 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (Section 1.17 NAL).

   Cardinal Broadband, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
   Order, 23 FCC Rcd 12224 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (VoIP E911 NAL). Section
   9.5(b)(1) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that providers of
   interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service "must, as a
   condition of providing service to a consumer, provide that consumer with
   E911 service as described in this section." 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(b)(1). See
   IP-Enabled Services and E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
   Providers, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20
   FCC Rcd 10245, 10266, para. 37 (2005) (VoIP E911 Order), aff'd sub nom.
   Nuvio v. FCC, 473 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006). See also, 47 C.F.R. S: 9.5(a)
   (making the E911 service requirements "applicable to providers of
   interconnected VoIP services"). An interconnected VoIP service is a
   service that: (1) enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (2)
   requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires
   Internet Protocol-compatible customer premises equipment; and (4) permits
   users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched
   telephone network (PSTN) and to terminate calls to the PSTN. See 47 C.F.R.
   S: 9.3; see also VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10257-58, para. 24.

   VoIP E911 NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12227-12228, paras. 9, 12. In a companion
   decision issued concurrently with this Forfeiture Order, we affirm the
   VoIP E911 NAL.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Cardinal Communications, Inc. (Sept. 10, 2007)
   (Initial LOI).

   Letter from Edward A. Garneau, Chief Executive Officer, Cardinal
   Communications, Inc., and Ronald S. Bass, Principal Accounting Officer,
   Cardinal Communications, Inc., to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum
   Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, and Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon,
   Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Oct. 9, 2007)
   (Initial LOI Response) at 3 (emphasis in original).

   Section 1.17 NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12235, para. 7.

   Id. at 12235, para. 8.

   See Cardinal Broadband, LLC, Opposition to Notices of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture (filed Oct. 10, 2008) (Consolidated NAL Response). Cardinal
   requested and was granted an extension of time to respond.

   Id. at 2.

   Id.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order,
   12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture
   Policy Statement).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a).

   Id. S: 1.17(b)(4).

   In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules
   Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, Report and Order, 18 FCC
   Rcd 4016, 4016-17, paras. 1-2, 4021, para. 12 (2003) ("Amendment of
   Section 1.17"), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
   5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250
   (2004).

   See Amendment of Section 1.17, 18 FCC Rcd at 4017, para. 2 (stating that
   the revision to Section 1.17 is intended to "prohibit incorrect statements
   or omissions that are the result of negligence, as well as an intent to
   deceive").

   Consolidated NAL Response at 2.

   See Letter from Ronald S. Bass, Principal Accounting Officer, Cardinal
   Communications, Inc., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 7, 2008) (January 7 LOI Response)
   at 3, 7, 15, 19.

   Id. at 7 (stating that "[w]hat we did not make clear is we offer digital
   service side-by-side with Qwest analog service so no internet related
   equipment is required. If a customer wants analog phone we get it for them
   through Qwest hence, there is no requirement for a broadband connection
   nor is there a requirement for customer premises equipment.").

   VoIP E911 NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12228, para. 11.

   Id.

   See Initial LOI. The second inquiry in the Initial LOI directed Cardinal
   to respond to the following question regarding Cardinal's VoIP service
   offering: "State whether Cardinal currently provides interconnected VoIP
   service to the public." Id at 1.

   January 7 LOI Response at 17-18. The record indicates that the service
   Cardinal resold uses an integrated access device (IAD) to connect through
   a T1 to the provider's server, which then connected with the PSTN. Id. at
   17.

   Both the VoIP E911 Order and Section 9.3 of the Rules clearly define
   interconnected VoIP as a service that, inter alia, requires a broadband
   connection from the user's location and Internet Protocol-compatible CPE.
   See supra note 4.

   Section 1.17 NAL,  23 FCC Rcd at 12236, para. 8. As the Commission has
   stated, parties must "use due diligence in providing information that is
   correct and not misleading to the Commission, including taking appropriate
   affirmative steps to determine the truthfulness of what is being
   submitted. A failure to exercise such reasonable diligence would mean that
   the party did not have a reasonable basis for believing in the
   truthfulness of the information." See Amendment of Section 1.17 of the
   Commission's Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission,
   Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4021, para. 12 (2003).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a). See Invision Industries, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 13095, 13103-04, para. 25 (2008),
   response pending (finding that a television importer's failure to exercise
   due diligence to ensure that the information provided in its LOI Response
   was not misleading constituted a violation of Section 1.17(a)).

   Consolidated NAL Response at 2.

   See Section 1.17 NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12235, para. 6.

   Consolidated NAL Response at 2.

   See Section 1.17 NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12236, para. 8.

   See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
   Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Second Memorandum Opinion and
   Order,  14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20852, para. 2 (1999), clarified, 16 FCC Rcd
   18982 (2001); see also Sprint Nextel, 22 FCC Rcd at 16418, para. 10;
   T-Mobile USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,  18 FCC
   Rcd 3501, 3504, para. 7 (2003) (forfeiture paid).

   Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced
   911 Emergency Calling Systems, Report and Order and Further Notice of
   Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18679, para. 5 (1996) (subsequent
   history omitted).

   VoIP E911 NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12229, para. 17.

   Consolidated NAL Response at 3.

   See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 7 FCC Rcd
   2088, 2089, para. 8 (1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it
   represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's gross revenues);
   Local Long Distance, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000)
   (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.9
   percent of the violator's gross revenues); Hoosier Broadcasting
   Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 8640 (2002) (forfeiture not
   deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the
   violator's gross revenues).

   See Section 1.17 NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 12235, para. 15.

   Based on established precedent, the $25,000 forfeiture proposed in the
   Section 1.17 NAL is not excessive in comparison to Cardinal's reported
   gross revenues. See supra note 39.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

   Id. S: 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).

   An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued ...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1124

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1124