As pressure mounts on RF spectrum, the professional AV sector is facing a defining moment. In this Q&A, Sam Clodd, steering committee member at WMSA Europe and operations manager at Mission Control, explains why the industry must act now as regulators revisit how key frequency bands are allocated.
Inavate: What gap did you see in Europe that led to the creation of WMSA Europe?
Sam Clodd: What was missing was the right European voice: one that genuinely represented the end-users of this spectrum, not just the industry in the abstract.
The people who should be most visible in the regulatory conversation are the wireless coordinators and the wireless microphone users, the sound engineers, the touring and broadcast professionals. These are the people whose work depends directly on access to this spectrum, and they were largely absent from the decisions being made about its future.
At Mission Control we operate globally, and what strikes me is that this is not a uniquely European problem. We see the same pressures playing out in the United States, in Asia, in markets around the world. But the European regulatory process has its own structure and its own timeline, and influencing it requires a dedicated, credible voice that speaks from within that context.
WMSA Europe was created to be that voice, and to ensure the whole ecosystem is united behind it: coordinators, technicians, companies and the professionals who depend on reliable wireless every day.
I: Spectrum pressure has been discussed for years. What's changed now to make this moment critical?
SC: The next World Radiocommunication Conference is in 2031, and the preparatory work within European regulatory bodies is already underway. The 614 to 694 MHz portion of the UHF band is under serious pressure for potential reallocation to mobile broadband, and once that process gains momentum it becomes very difficult to reverse.
We are in the window where evidence-based engagement can still shape the outcome. It is also worth noting that Ofcom's recent call for input on the spectrum used by the live events and broadcast sectors, the first major review of its kind in the UK, was a significant moment. It showed that regulators are actively re-examining these allocations, and it demonstrated exactly why a coordinated, well-evidenced response from our sector matters.
At Mission Control we see this pressure across every major market we work in. This is a global issue, and the decisions made in Europe over the next few years will have consequences well beyond its borders. We are not dealing with a distant hypothetical; the process is live.
I: How is the reduction in available spectrum affecting projects on the ground today?
SC: Coordination has become considerably more complex and time-intensive.
On large productions, we are managing more channels within a tighter usable range, which increases the risk of interference and demands more rigorous pre-production planning. The margin for error has shrunk. What used to be a manageable challenge is now a genuine technical constraint.
The effects go beyond the frequency plan itself: it influences how we design systems, what equipment we can recommend, how much lead time we need, and ultimately what we can promise clients in terms of reliability.
The hidden cost is the additional hours of specialist work required to achieve the same result. And this is happening at precisely the moment when demand is going in the opposite direction. Wireless technology is driving genuine innovation in live production. Shows are more ambitious, staging is more complex, artists and performers expect greater freedom of movement, and the creative possibilities that wireless enables are expanding all the time. The demand for wireless microphones and in-ear monitoring systems is increasing year on year.
We are being asked to do more, with more channels, in a tighter spectrum window. That tension is real and it is felt on every large-scale production. We observe it consistently whether we are working in Europe, North America or elsewhere. The problem is universal, even if the regulatory context differs.
I: Where are AV professionals feeling this most? Live events, broadcast, corporate environments, or elsewhere?
SC: Live events are undoubtedly where the pressure is most acute. High channel counts, unpredictable interference environments, time pressure on the day: all of that is amplified when your available spectrum is reduced.
Broadcast also feels the pressure sharply, particularly in outside broadcast and news-gathering contexts where professionals may be working in heavily contested frequency space with limited coordination options.
Corporate and installed environments have somewhat more predictability, but they are not immune, particularly in major city centres or venues hosting a variety of high-density events. The common thread is that wherever high channel counts and reliable wireless performance are non-negotiable, spectrum pressure creates real operational risk.
I: What does this challenge mean for system design and planning compared to five years ago?
SC: The planning cycle is longer and more rigorous. Five years ago, there was more room to work with; now every frequency decision must be made more carefully. We are doing more detailed intermodulation analysis earlier in the design process, being more selective about equipment choices, and building in more contingency. There is also a harder conversation to have with clients about what professional wireless coordination requires in terms of time and resource.
The overall effect is that this has become a more specialised and more critical discipline, and the gap between a properly coordinated system and an ad hoc one has widened considerably. As environments become more constrained, the presence of a qualified wireless coordinator should increasingly be seen not as a luxury but as a professional requirement.
Events are growing in complexity, the technical demands are higher, and the knowledge needed to navigate that responsibly is not something you can improvise on the day.
I: To what extent can technology adapt to these constraints, and where are the limits?
SC: Technology has adapted meaningfully. Improvements in receiver quality, more spectrally efficient system designs, and smarter coordination tools have all helped. But technology has physical limits, and no amount of engineering can fully substitute for adequate spectrum. You cannot coordinate frequencies that do not exist.
There is also a practical constraint that is often overlooked: a large portion of the professional installed base was designed and purchased for a wider operational window. That equipment does not become obsolete overnight, and the financial and environmental cost of forced replacement is significant. Technology can help us do more with less, but it is not a solution to what is fundamentally a political and regulatory problem.
I: UHF spectrum remains central, how realistic are alternatives in real-world deployments?
SC: The UHF band between 470 and 694 MHz remains irreplaceable for the vast majority of professional wireless audio applications. The propagation characteristics, the way those frequencies behave around human bodies, through obstacles, and across large venues, are genuinely well-suited to what we do in a way that higher frequency bands simply are not. When you are coordinating 80, 100, or 160 channels across a large-scale live production or a complex broadcast environment, UHF is not a preference. It is a technical requirement.
It is also worth being clear about how broadly this equipment is used. We are not talking about a niche application. This technology is in use every single day: in theatres, in houses of worship, in conference centres, on broadcast news programmes, at political debates and election night coverage, at major sporting events and stadium concerts.
Wireless microphones and in-ear systems are critical infrastructure for the way public life is produced and communicated. The spectrum that supports them deserves to be treated accordingly.
I: What role do you want WMSA Europe to play in influencing regulators and policy decisions?
SC: WMSA Europe’s role is to be a credible, evidence-based voice in the regulatory process, and we have already started. Our response to the RSPG consultation on the 6G roadmap was our first formal submission, and it demonstrated that WMSA Europe can mobilise quickly and contribute substantively to discussions that shape the long-term spectrum landscape.
The Ofcom call for input on the live events and broadcast sectors was another example of where a well-organised sector response genuinely matters. What makes our approach distinctive is the commitment to engage at a national as well as European level.
National regulators understand local conditions, allocate spectrum in practice, and respond to domestic industry voices. Events happen in every country, every week, and national administrations need to understand what our sector looks like on the ground in their own markets.
That is why we are structuring our Steering Committee with one dedicated professional representative per country across Europe: people embedded in their own regulatory environment, with the language, the relationships, and the local knowledge to engage directly on WMSA’s behalf. It is a large undertaking, and we are honest about that. But we want every professional in our field, whether they work for a large company or freelance on the circuit, to feel part of this effort. Unity is what gives this alliance its weight. Individual voices matter; a collective voice is heard.
I: How will the Alliance ensure that independent RF coordinators and freelancers are properly represented?
This is something WMSA Europe takes seriously. The freelance and independent community represents a significant part of the professional workforce in our sector, and their day-to-day operational experience is exactly the kind of ground-level evidence that strengthens our case to regulators.
WMSA Europe's membership structure is designed to be inclusive, and we actively seek input from across the profession, not just from larger companies or national associations. The lived experience of a freelance coordinator working a festival circuit or a touring production is extremely valuable, and we want to ensure that experience is visible in the policy conversation.
There is also a broader point: as productions become more technically complex and the spectrum environment more constrained, the role of the professional wireless coordinator becomes more important, not less. We believe that at a certain scale of event, having a qualified coordinator should not be optional. It should be a standard requirement, in the same way that other safety and technical disciplines are. Representing independent professionals properly is central to making that argument credibly.
We also see strong and growing interest from students entering the industry, and we welcome that. The next generation of coordinators and wireless professionals will inherit this environment, and making sure they understand both the technical demands and the policy stakes is very much part of what we want to support.
I: What's the one thing AV professionals should be doing now to prepare for a more constrained spectrum environment?
SC: I would reframe the question slightly, because preparing for a more constrained environment implies accepting it as inevitable, and we do not. Further significant reallocation of this spectrum would have serious and lasting consequences for our sector and for the wider public events and broadcast landscape that depends on it.
The priority is to prevent that outcome, not to adapt to it. So, the single most important thing any professional in this field can do right now is to get involved. Engage with WMSA Europe, understand what is at stake, and make your operational experience available to those making the case to regulators.
The strength of our advocacy depends directly on how many credible voices are behind it. Beyond that, make sure your clients and event organisers understand the stakes too. This is not a technical concern for specialists to manage quietly. It is a question about what kind of productions, broadcasts and public events will be possible in ten years' time.
We also need to be pushing, collectively, for something more structural: at a certain scale of event or production, a qualified wireless coordinator should be a formal requirement – not a recommendation, not a nice to have. Other technical and safety disciplines have that status, and there is a strong case that wireless coordination should too.
And for those at the start of their careers, this is a field that genuinely needs you. We see real enthusiasm from students and emerging professionals, and that energy matters. The sooner the next generation engages with these issues, the better placed our whole sector will be.