Hi Dick (et al), When you asked me at the January meeting about field sizes, I thought you were talking about the fields on the web pages (the ULS system forms), but in fact, you were asking about the size of the field in the database. My apologies for the misunderstanding. I had not been in the ULS system for a long time, but on reviewing things since then, it appears they have allowed for up to 40 characters for the operator class on the web pages (at least on the form that displays license search results). In terms of the database, it is most likely that they have used a one or two character code for all the operator classes as this saves a lot of space when you repeat the class in every license record. It is further likely that they have a "lookup table" that translates the codes to the descriptive name (for example "E" for "Extra", "G" for "General, etc.). But of course, I have no access to their database design, so we have no way of knowing for sure. If they went this route, adding a new class could be as simple as adding a record (row) to the "lookup table", but given the age of the licensing database, I wouldn't even bet a nickle on being right. On the other hand, there is evidence of the use of codes right on the ULS site. For example, page http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/radioservices.html lists all the radio services with a "Radio Service Code" column prominently displayed. Note that the Amateur Service has two codes ("HA" for Amateur, and "HV" for Amateur Vanity), which I guess is to segregate the vanity calls because they require a fee. Now in terms of license restructuring, they are going to have to do some programming no matter what. Look here for example: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/about/operatorclass.html . Even if they merely eliminate Element 1, this page must be changed as it says things like "A telegraphy examination at 5 wpm must also be passed". The largest concern on their minds is likely having to do some massive database conversion (updating codes from one value to another), which I why I expect they will strongly resist any automatic reclassification (plus the burden of printing and mailing all new license documents). In conclusion, I don't think the length of the new license class name really matters, provided it's not ridiculously long. However, I won't hazard a guess at how interested they will be in creating (or reviving) an operator class. And I think we were wise in not making a new name mainstream in our proposal. Only time will tell. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director (back row techno-weenie). At 09:19 AM 1/30/2004, you wrote:

30 JAN, 2004 - 1115 CST

Regardless of what name is chosen, just keep in mind that in order to keep from creating additional re-programming by the FCC, the name must no more than six characters, or have a sensible abbreviation of no more than six characters.

73 - Dick, W9GIG

Andy Oppel andy@andyoppel.com