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-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:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    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
       applicable authorizations.

   II. BACKGROUND

    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
       to aircraft.

    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
       MHz.

    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.

   III. DISCUSSION

    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,
       2011.

    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
       64106.

   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,
   http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/aviation/faawxsystems/tdwr.html (last
   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.
   S:1.80.

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

   The base forfeiture amount for interference is $7,000. See 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 301, 503(b), 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80,
   15.1(b).

   47 U.S.C. S: 333.

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

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1314

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1314