<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Sorry Dan, I'm the list owner of 3 Yahoo groups for Chinese</div><div>built FCC Part 90 approved that are wide band transmit</div><div>136 - 174 / 400 - 490 TX with 12.5 / 20 / 25 kHz channel</div><div>spacing. </div><div><br></div><div>My point is that Part 97 means nothing. Just like Part 95 means </div><div>nothing to these Chinese radios. As long as they are Part 90</div><div>certified and designed as a ham radio, the FCC leaves it </div><div>up to the operator to follow band plans as long as they adhere</div><div>to narrowband mandate. I guess I should</div><div>have explained myself better. </div><div><br></div><div>Subject dropped as far as I'm concerned. </div><div><br></div><br><div>
<div><b style="color: rgb(0, 86, 214); "><i><font style="font-size: 14px; ">Sent from my 15.4" MacBook Pro, i7 quad core</font></i> </b></div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Dan Smith <<a href="mailto:dsmith@danplanet.com">dsmith@danplanet.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Your wrong, they are legal for use by licensed hams. <br></blockquote><br>He didn't say they were illegal, he said they're not type-accepted for<br>part 97, which is true.<br><br>This discussion has been hashed out (correctly and incorrectly) on<br>almost every other list. It doesn't belong here anyway, so please end<br>this thread.<br><br>-- <br>Dan Smith<br><a href="http://www.danplanet.com">www.danplanet.com</a><br>KK7DS<br>_______________________________________________<br>chirp_users mailing list<br>chirp_users@intrepid.danplanet.com<br>http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/chirp_users<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>