To split frequencies – or not – that was the DevonAir gamble
The decision to revoke DevonAir Radio‘s licence, citing its unwillingness to split its output over both MF and FM, remains a topic of contentious debate that continues to resonate even after several decades.
This particular decision raised fundamental questions about the broadcasting landscape and the regulatory framework at the time. Supporters argue that DevonAir Radio‘s refusal to adopt a split output system was a valid reason for the licence revocation, as it was deemed essential for equitable access and coverage for listeners across the region. Proponents of this perspective believe that the decision upheld fairness and ensured a diverse and inclusive radio environment.
However, critics maintain that the revocation was unjustified and represented a missed opportunity to preserve the uniqueness and identity of DevonAir Radio. They argue that the station’s unified broadcast on either MF or FM could have provided a distinct listening experience, catering specifically to the preferences and needs of its audience. Detractors of the decision claim that it reflected a rigid adherence to regulatory guidelines without considering the potential value of a singular broadcasting platform.
The on-going debates surrounding the revocation of DevonAir Radio‘s licence demonstrate the lasting impact and significance of this decision within the broadcasting industry. It serves as a reminder of the complex considerations involved in balancing regulatory requirements, technological advancements, and the diverse interests of both broadcasters and listeners. Decades later, the discourse around this event remains a testament to the enduring influence of radio as a medium and the intricate dynamics within the broadcasting landscape.
In the 1990s radio climate, both analogue medium frequency (MF) broadcasting and popular FM services held significant importance within the British broadcasting landscape.
Here’s an explanation of the importance of each and why the regulator probably felt that a station broadcasting on both MF and FM frequencies should split its editorial content locally, essentially providing two distinct services:
Importance of Analogue MF Broadcasting in the 1990’s:
Established Infrastructure:
Analogue MF broadcasting had an extensive and well-established infrastructure that had been developed over many years. This infrastructure ensured reliable coverage across the country, particularly in areas where FM broadcasting infrastructure was limited.
Wide Coverage:
Analogue MF signals could propagate over long distances and penetrate obstacles, making them suitable for reaching remote and rural areas. This allowed radio stations utilising MF frequencies to provide broader coverage and reach a larger audience, including those residing in geographically challenging regions.
Accessibility:
Many households, vehicles, and portable radios in the 1990s were equipped with analogue receivers capable of tuning in to MF frequencies. This widespread availability of analogue radios made MF broadcasts easily accessible to a wide range of listeners, contributing to their continued popularity.
Importance of Popular FM Services in the 1990’s:
Enhanced Audio Quality:
FM broadcasting offered improved audio quality compared to analogue MF broadcasting. FM signals were less prone to interference and provided clearer reception, resulting in a higher fidelity listening experience.
Localised Content and Community Connection:
FM services often catered to specific localities or communities, allowing broadcasters to deliver content that was more relevant and tailored to the interests of their local audience. This localised approach fostered a stronger sense of community connection and engagement.
Musical Variety and Specialised Programming:
FM stations frequently specialised in specific music genres or targeted niche audiences, providing diverse and specialised programming options. This allowed listeners to tune in to stations that aligned with their musical preferences and offered a more tailored listening experience.
Regarding the regulator’s perspective on splitting editorial content for a station broadcasting on both MF and FM frequencies, the rationale encompassed several factors:
Local Relevance:
By splitting the editorial content locally, the regulator aimed to ensure that the station could deliver programming that was specifically targeted to the needs and interests of the local communities served by each frequency. This approach recognised the importance of local relevance and allowed for greater community engagement.
Distinct Services:
Splitting the editorial content between MF and FM frequencies effectively created two distinct services within the same station. Each service could then focus on delivering programming that catered to the unique characteristics and expectations of the respective frequency bands.
Utilisation of Frequency Spectrum:
The regulator aimed to maximise the utilisation of the frequency spectrum by encouraging stations to provide differentiated content on MF and FM frequencies. This approach allowed for a more efficient allocation of frequencies and ensured that broadcasters were utilising the available resources effectively.
In summary:
Analogue MF broadcasting and popular FM services both held importance in the 1990s radio climate. While analogue MF broadcasting offered wide coverage and accessibility, FM services provided enhanced audio quality, localised content, and specialised programming. The regulator’s approach of splitting editorial content locally for stations broadcasting on both MF and FM frequencies aimed to ensure local relevance, provide distinct services, and optimise the utilisation of the frequency spectrum. This allowed broadcasters to better cater to their audiences’ needs and preferences while promoting a diverse and engaging radio landscape.