In something that I wrote recently, I referred to “70 cm repeaters,” meaning, of course repeaters that operate between 420 MHz and 450 MHz (at least here in the United States). One of the reviewers took me to task for my use of this phrase, writing:
Another thing that amateur radio gets wrong is the use of terms like 70 cm. WE old hams know what that means, but there aren’t any radios that display a frequency in cm, so in my opinion, it’s best to spell out frequencies and not wavelengths. To rewrite this, I’d say, “440 MHz repeaters” instead.
While I see his point, I’m not so sure that he’s right about this. Back in the day—and I’m talking the 20th century here—we used to call the 70 cm band, the 440 band (at least here in the Midwest). Note that we’d say “440” and not “420,” because most, if not all, the repeaters were located at the top end of the band.
Now, however, I think it’s becoming more common to hear 70 cm instead of 440 MHz. Why call that band 440 MHz when we refer to all that other bands—at least all those lower in frequency—by their wavelengths? What I suggested is that I re-word “70 cm repeaters” to read “70 cm-band repeaters” or “repeaters for the 70 cm band.”
In his reply to this suggestion he wrote:
To each his own, I guess. In my writing, I’m trying to make amateur radio seem accessible and inclusive to those who aren’t currently hams, but might be interested. I’m not trying to “dumb it down”—my intended audience is techies—but I think that one only understands wavelength measurements once you’re on the inside of amateur radio. To a non-ham it’s cryptic to say 70 cm; non-ham wireless experimenters are used to seeing 433 MHz, 900 MHz, so that’s why I use frequencies, not wavelengths.
I think that perhaps what I’ll do is to continue to refer to the band as the 70 cm band when writing for amateurs, but be more specific when I think that non-amateurs will be part of the audience. For example, I might refer to “repeaters operating in the 70 cm band (420-450 MHz).”
What do you think?