Federal Communications Commission DA 15-771
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Custom Computers d.b.a. Winchester Wireless
Operator of Wireless Internet Service Provider
Winchester, VA
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-FIELDNER-13-00009170
NAL/Acct. No.:  201432340001
FRN:  0023200199
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted:  June 30, 2015 Released:  June 30, 2015
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We impose a penalty of $4,800 against Custom Computers d.b.a. Winchester Wireless 
(Winchester Wireless) for unauthorized use of external amplifiers at its transmitter sites.  Unauthorized 
operations can result in harmful interference to licensed spectrum users and void the authority to operate 
without a license.  Winchester Wireless does not deny that its transmitters were connected to external 
amplifiers or that its transmitters are not certified for use with external amplifiers.  However, Winchester 
Wireless requests cancellation of the penalty proposed against it, claiming the Enforcement Bureau 
(Bureau) failed to establish that its transmitting equipment was in operation at the time of inspection or 
that it exercised control over the transmitting equipment.  Winchester Wireless also requests a forfeiture 
reduction based on its inability to pay.  We find that Winchester Wireless’s equipment was in operation 
during the inspection and that it exercised sufficient control over the equipment to hold it liable for the 
unauthorized operation violations.  We therefore find insufficient basis to cancel the forfeiture, but 
conclude that reducing the forfeiture to $4,800 is appropriate based on Winchester Wireless’s 
demonstrated inability to pay.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On May 10, 2011, in response to a complaint, an agent from the Bureau’s Columbia Office 
inspected a transmitter operated by Winchester Wireless at Wardensville Grade in Winchester, Virginia.
1
  
During the inspection, the agent determined that the transmitter was a Motorola Canopy System transmitter 
and found two external RF Linx 900 MHz amplifiers connected to the transmitter.
2
  The agent subsequently 
reviewed the equipment authorization for the Motorola Canopy System and found that the transmitter was
not certified for use with external amplifiers.
3
  The agent also interviewed Winchester Wireless’s owner 
David Williamson, who admitted using the external amplifiers on the Wardensville Grade transmitter.
4
  On 
August 11, 2011, the Columbia Office issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (2011 NOUO) to 
                                                     
1
See Custom Computers d.b.a. Winchester Wireless, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 29 FCC 
Rcd 2641, 2642, para. 3 (Enf. Bur. 2014) (NAL).  The NAL includes a more complete discussion of the facts and 
history of this case and is incorporated herein by reference.  
2
Id.
3
See FCC ID ABZ89FC5809.
4
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 2642, para. 3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-771
2
Winchester Wireless regarding its unauthorized use of external amplifiers at Wardensville Grade.
5
  Mr. 
Williamson responded to the 2011 NOUO and reported that Winchester Wireless had removed the
external amplifiers from the Wardensville Grade site.
6
  
3. On May 29, 2013, in response to additional complaints, an agent from the Columbia Office 
inspected two additional transmitter sites operated by Winchester Wireless on Pepper Lane and Shawnee 
Trail in Winchester, Virginia.
7
  At both sites, the agent observed signals on the 900 MHz band emanating 
from the same Motorola Canopy System transmitters and RF Linx amplifiers observed during the May 2011 
Wardensville Grade site investigation.
8
  On July 29, 2013, the Columbia Office issued another Notice of 
Unlicensed Operation (2013 NOUO) to Winchester Wireless ordering it to cease its unauthorized use of 
external amplifiers and warning that future unauthorized operations at the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail 
sites could result in significant penalties.
9
  Mr. Williamson responded to the 2013 NOUO, stating it would 
investigate the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites to assess Winchester Wireless’s compliance.
10
  On 
March 11, 2014, the Bureau issued the NAL proposing a $25,000 forfeiture against Winchester Wireless for 
its apparent willful violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and 
Section 15.1(b) of the Commission’s rules (Rules) by operating its transmitters with external amplifiers 
without authorization.
11
4. On April 10, 2014, Winchester Wireless filed a response to the NAL.
12
  Winchester 
Wireless argues that the NAL should be canceled because the Bureau did not establish that the equipment 
at the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites was in operation at the time of the inspection.
13
  Winchester 
Wireless also contends that the Bureau failed to demonstrate that it exercised actual working control over 
the equipment and suggests that local residents attached the external amplifiers to its transmitters.
14
  Finally, 
Winchester Wireless states that payment of the proposed penalty would represent an “undue hardship” 
and provided federal tax returns in support of its inability to pay claim.
15
III. DISCUSSION
5. The Bureau proposed a forfeiture in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the 
Act,
16
Section 1.80 of the Rules,
17
and the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement.
18
  When we assess
                                                     
5
Custom Computers d.b.a. Winchester Wireless, Notice of Unlicensed Operation (Enf. Bur. 2011) (on file in EB-
FIELDNER-13-00009170) (2011 NOUO).
6
See E-mail from David Williamson, owner of Winchester Wireless, to Shannon Gunter, Columbia Office, 
Enforcement Bureau (August 29, 2011) (on file in EB-FIELDNER-13-00009170).
7
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 2642, para. 5.
8
Id.
9
Custom Computers d.b.a. Winchester Wireless, Notice of Unlicensed Operation (July 29, 2013) (on file in EB-
FIELDNER-13-00009170) (2013 NOUO).
10
See E-mail from David Williamson, owner of Winchester Wireless, to Shannon Gunter, Columbia Office, 
Enforcement Bureau (July 31, 2013) (on file in EB-FIELDNER-13-00009170).
11
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 2644–45, paras. 8, 12; 47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 C.F.R. § 15.1(b).
12
See Custom Computers d.b.a. Winchester Wireless, Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and 
Order (Apr. 10, 2014) (on file in EB-FIELDNER-13-00009170) (NAL Response).
13
See NAL Response at 2–4.
14
Id.
15
Id. at 4–5, Attachment.  On May 26 and 29, 2015, at the request of Bureau staff, Winchester Wireless provided 
updated financial data in support of its inability to pay claim.
16
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
17
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-771
3
forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) requires that we 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 such other matters as justice may require.”
19
  As discussed below, we have 
fully considered Winchester Wireless’s response to the NAL, and find that a forfeiture reduction is 
warranted based on inability to pay.
A. Winchester Wireless Operated its Transmitters with External Amplifiers without 
Authorization
6. Winchester Wireless argues that the Bureau failed to establish that the equipment at the 
Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites was in operation at the time of the inspection.
20
  We disagree.  During 
the inspection of the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites, the agent discovered the same Motorola Canopy 
System transmitters and RF Linx amplifiers that he observed during the May 2011 investigation of 
Winchester Wireless’s Wardensville Grade site.
21
Although the equipment was located on inaccessible 
towers and masts,
22
the agent collected sufficient evidence demonstrating that the equipment was 
operational.  First, the agent used a spectrum analyzer and directional antenna to locate the source of the 
radiofrequency signals in the 900 MHz band to the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites.  Second, the 
agent obtained spectrum snapshots at each location, providing visual documentation of the transmissions.  
Third, the agent took pictures showing the connection of the RF Linx amplifiers to the Motorola Canopy 
System transmitters.  With this evidence, there is no requirement that the agent directly examine the 
equipment at the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites.  As a result, we find sufficient evidence in the 
record that that the equipment at the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites was in operation at the time of 
the inspection.
7. We also find that Winchester Wireless exercised sufficient control over the general 
conduct or management of the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites to find it liable for operating its 
transmitters with external amplifiers without authorization.  As Winchester Wireless acknowledges, the 
term “operate” is broadly defined to include “the general conduct or management of a station as a whole, 
as distinct from the specific technical work involved in the actual transmission of signals.”
23
  In other 
words, the use of the word “operate” captures “not just the actual, mechanical manipulation of radio 
apparatus, but also operation of a . . . station generally.”
24
  The Commission therefore can consider 
whether an entity exercises “any means of actual working control over the operation of the [station] in 
whatever manner exercised” when determining whether such entity is labile for the unauthorized 
operations of a station.
25
  We have found such actual working control when a party holds itself out as the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
18
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) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 
19
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
20
See NAL Response at 2–4.
21
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 2642, para. 5.
22
Id. at para. 5 n. 13.
23
See NAL Response at 3; Campbell v. United States, 167 F.2d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1948); see also Daniel K. Roberts, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 1220, 1222, para. 5 (Enf. Bur. 2014),
24
Roberts, 29 FCC Rcd at 1222, para. 5 (internal quotations omitted); Vicot Chery, Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 
16065, 16066, para. 4 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).
25
Roberts, 29 FCC Rcd at 1222, para. 5 (citing Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Service, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9712, 9747, para. 91 (1995), aff'd sub nom. DIRECTV, Inc. v FCC, 110 F.3d 
816 (D.C. Cir 1997)).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-771
4
manager of an unauthorized station,
26
accesses an unauthorized station’s transmitter,
27
or operates station 
equipment in an unauthorized manner.
28
8. In its NAL Response, Winchester Wireless argues that the Bureau never established that it 
operated from the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites.
29
  However, as noted in the NAL, Winchester 
Wireless stated that it would investigate the compliance of its operations at the Pepper Lane and Shawnee 
Trail sites in response to the 2013 NOUO.
30
  As a result, Winchester Wireless held itself out as having
control over the general conduct or management of the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites and stated that 
it would access the transmitter sites in order to assess the compliance of its operations.  Winchester Wireless 
nevertheless suggests that it the forfeiture must be cancelled because local residents could have attached the 
external amplifiers to their transmitters.
31
  Winchester Wireless provides no evidence to support this claim.
32
  
However, the mere fact that a third party’s actions may have led to the violations does not absolve 
Winchester Wireless because “liability for unlicensed operation may be assigned to any individual taking 
part in the operation of the unlicensed station, regardless of who else may be responsible for the 
operation.”
33
  Even if the residents attached the external amplifiers, Winchester Wireless’s continued 
operation of its transmitters while failing to ensure that such operation conformed to its equipment 
authorization violated the Act and Rules.
34
  The Commission has previously determined that the operation 
of a station in an unauthorized manner, even if the licensee is not aware of the unauthorized operation, 
constitutes a violation.
35
  As a result, we conclude that Winchester Wireless exercised control over the 
                                                     
26
See id. at 1222–23, para. 6 (finding individual exercised actual working control when he held himself out publicly 
as the manager of a pirate radio station).
27
See Vicot Chery, 28 FCC Rcd at 16066, para. 5 (finding individual exercised actual working control when he 
showed agents the location of the transmitter of an unlicensed radio station); Damian Anthony Ojouku Allen, Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 7956, 7958, para. 6 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (same), aff’d, Forfeiture 
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 14001 (Enf. Bur. 2012). 
28
See Catholic Radio Network of Loveland, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-66, para. 2 (June 11, 
2015) (finding entity exercised actual working control when it operated station resulting in unauthorized emissions); 
Steckline Commc’ns, Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 1082, 1084, para. 5 (Enf. Bur. 2014) (finding entity exercised 
actual working control when it operated station at unauthorized power level).
29
NAL Response at 3.
30
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 2642–43, para. 5 (citing E-mail from David Williamson, owner of Winchester Wireless, to 
Shannon Gunter, Columbia Office, Enforcement Bureau (July 31, 2013) (on file in EB-FIELDNER-13-00009170).
31
NAL Response at 3–4.
32
Compare Vernon Broad., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 Rad. Reg. 2d 1275 (1986) (cancelling a 
$1,000 AM tower fencing violation where the evidence indicated that the fencing was vandalized just prior to 
inspection). 
33
Glen Rubash, 28 FCC Rcd 15922, 15924, para. 5 (Enf. Bur. 2013).  See Steckline Commc’ns, Inc., 29 FCC Rcd at 
1084, para. 5 (finding violations even in the event of third-party tampering with station equipment because the party 
continued to operate the station at variance from authorized parameters).
34
Steckline Commc’ns, 29 FCC at 1084, para. 5 (“Even if a third party tampered with the Station’s equipment, 
Steckline’s continued operation of the Station while failing to monitor its power level and directional pattern and 
discover its non-compliance, rendered its actions willful.”).
35
See, e.g., Catholic Radio Network of Loveland, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 988, 989, 
para. 4 (Enf. Bur. 2015) (finding violation repeated even when party was unaware of overpower station operation 
due to faulty equipment), aff’d, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15-66 (June 11, 2015); Playa Del Sol 
Broadcasters, Order on Review, 28 FCC Rcd 2666, 2668–69, para. 6 (2013) (concluding that because the licensee 
consciously and deliberately operated its station resulting in unauthorized emissions the violation was willful, 
irrespective of any intent by the licensee to violate the law).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-771
5
general conduct or management of the Pepper Lane and Shawnee Trail sites and find no basis to cancel the 
proposed penalty.
B. Winchester Wireless’s Demonstrated Inability to Pay Warrants a Forfeiture 
Reduction
9. Winchester Wireless also seeks a reduction of the proposed forfeiture based on an 
inability to pay and provided financial documentation supporting its claim.
36
  With regard to an 
individual’s or entity’s inability to pay claim, the Commission has determined that, in general, gross 
income or revenues are the best indicator of an ability to pay a forfeiture.
37
  Based on the financial 
documents provided by Winchester Wireless, we find sufficient basis to reduce the forfeiture to $4,800.
38
  
However, we caution Winchester Wireless that a party’s inability to pay is only one factor in our 
forfeiture calculation analysis, and is not dispositive.
39
  We have previously rejected inability to pay 
claims in cases of repeated intentional and malicious acts or otherwise egregious violations.
40
  We 
therefore warn Winchester Wireless that we could impose significantly higher penalties regardless of its
financial circumstances if the forfeiture imposed here does not serve as a sufficient deterrent or if future 
violations evidence a pattern of deliberate disregard for the Commission’s rules.
10. Based on the record before us and in light of the applicable statutory factors, we conclude 
that Winchester Wireless willfully violated Section 301 of the Act and Section 15.1(b) of the Rules by
operating its transmitters with external amplifiers without authorization. We further find after 
consideration of the entire record, including Winchester Wireless’s NAL Response and supportive 
financial materials, that cancellation of the proposed forfeiture against is unwarranted, but a reduction of 
the forfeiture amount to $4,800 is appropriate based on Winchester Wireless’s demonstrated inability to 
pay.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
41
and Section 
1.80 of the Rules,
42
Custom Computers d.b.a. Winchester Wireless IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) for willfully violating 
Section 301 of the Act and Section 15.1(b) of the Rules.
43
                                                     
36
NAL Response at 4–5, Attachment.
37
See Local Long Distance, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000) (forfeiture not deemed excessive 
where it represented approximately 7.9 percent of the violator’s gross revenues); see also Tommie Salter, Forfeiture 
Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1041 (Enf. Bur. 2015) (finding reduced forfeiture fell within the percentage range that the 
Commission previously found acceptable).   
38
This forfeiture amount falls within the percentage range that the Commission previously found acceptable.  See 
supra note 37.  If Winchester Wireless finds it financially infeasible to make full payment of this amount within 30 
days, it can request an installment plan, as described in paragraph 14 of this Forfeiture Order.   
39
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).  
40
See, e.g., TV Max, Inc., et al., Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 8648, 8661, para. 25 (2014) (noting that the 
Commission “has previously rejected inability to pay claims in cases of repeated or otherwise egregious 
violations”); Kevin W. Bondy, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7840 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (holding that violator’s repeated 
acts of malicious and intentional interference outweighed evidence concerning his ability to pay), aff’d, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1170 (Enf. Bur. 2013), aff’d, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 
FCC Rcd 16815 (Enf. Bur. 2013); Whisler Fleurinor, Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1087, 1090, para. 9 (Enf. Bur. 
2013) (violator’s demonstrated inability to pay outweighed by gravity of multiple intentional violations).
41
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
42
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
43
47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 C.F.R. § 15.1(b). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-771
6
12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the release of this Forfeiture Order.
44
  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.
45
  
13. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or 
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.  Custom Computers 
d.b.a. Winchester Wireless shall send electronic notification of payment to Kathy Harvey at 
Kathy.Harvey@fcc.gov, JoAnn Lucanik at JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov, and to Samantha Peoples at 
Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.  Regardless of the form of payment, a 
completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
46
  When completing the 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 that should be followed based 
on the form of payment selected:
? Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with completed Form 159) must be 
mailed to the 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 From 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.
14. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent 
to:  Chief Financial Officer – Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.
47
  Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by telephone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
                                                     
44
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
45
47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
46
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
47
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-771
7
15. 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 David Williamson, Owner, Custom Computers 
d.b.a. Winchester Wireless, 2979 Valley Avenue, Winchester, Virginia 22601, and to Stephen E. Coran,
Esq., Lerman Senter, PLLC, 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20554.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Travis LeBlanc 
Chief
Enforcement Bureau