Frequency wars: is cultural erosion the price to pay?

Our leaders are feeling more compelled by the day to turn the EU – often referred to as “the world’s unique peace project – into a military alliance. Since this existential U-turn has yet to dawn upon most Europeans, it is not too early to try and draw some consequences, more specifically on culture as would befit “SOS – Save Our Spectrum”.

The Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces, has been busy lately making inroads into the 470-510 MHz band whose primary allocation goes to DVB-T2 terrestrial TV, while PMSE (Programme Making and Special Events) has for decades used the ‘white spaces’ or gaps between DVB-T broadcasting frequencies to the delight of live performance attendees and, more generally, of all music lovers. This move is not only official, as the authorization was published in the Federal Networks Agency’s Official Gazette of 24 September 2025, but its impact is already felt all around the Pöcking barracks, near Munich.

Event organizers in Upper Bavaria already used to be mindful of jamming due to the proximity of Austria, but now the whole 470-510 MHz band has to be considered high-risk. Lighthouse events such as the Superbloom Festival are made impossible as a consequence, since 50% to 75% of all microphones used operate in that range. It is thus demonstrated that marrying defense and culture is tantamount to combining chalk and cheese. This cold expropriation is all the harder to grasp so as the Bundeswehr is allowed to operate in another UHF band, the 694-790 MHz range, but has never used it. Or maybe this blatant case of silent expropriation is anything but cold: rather it comes hot on the heels of the bout of Russian invasion panic that has seized most of Western Europe. In such circumstances, the bet is that every German citizen will understand that their nation’s security being at stake takes precedence over culture and other ‘ancillary’ matters such as health, education, social welfare, etc.

Chances are that what holds true for Germany will spill over to other NATO members across Europe. Or is it really a foregone conclusion? The perception of the Kremlin as an immediate threat varies widely between those countries that are neighbouring Russia and those closer to the Atlantic or North Sea, let alone Mediterranean shores. Furthermore, some have set up their own nuclear deterrent forces early on while others are too small to entertain heavy armies on a permanent basis. From another perspective, some European governments are less committed to culture or people’s welfare than, say, France, which has taken the lead in promoting European culture around the world or in loading up the nation’s budget with all sorts of social expenses. In light of the above, it may be time well spent to try and paint a possible view from France.

Unless previous and/or current governments have been lax regarding defense, the French people have every reason to believe that they can rely on a fully operational, independent nuclear deterrent, supplemented with properly trained and equipped conventional forces able to match the need to protect them and France’s territorial integrity. Otherwise, those caught sleeping at the wheel when sabre-rattling, or even actual war, is taking place at the EU’s gates did not deserve the trust French voters had put in them. Moreover, France’s diplomacy has long been considered one of the world’s best and most effective: it would not harm to engage with those leaders who look hostile to us and have a crack at deflecting possibly more devastating blows (in this respect, experience tells that the power to unleash nuclear fireworks should always come with a ‘hot line’ with fellow members of this exclusive club in order to spare us all early Apocalypse). France’s membership to this club came at a price: the French have contributed significant amounts of money, back in the 1960s, to get themselves a full-blown, truly independent nuclear deterrent while the rest of Europe relied on what was then seen as a cheaper, more convenient US ‘umbrella’.

In light of this past contribution, the heirs of those taxpayers should be spared the double whammy of having to align with the steep budget cuts and other austerity measures being decided by those fellow member States that have been lagging behind with respect to defense. In other words, sacrifices already done should be considered before mimicking tightly those countries whose overly optimistic foresight nurtured decades of benign neglect. Indeed, solidarity should not necessarily mean jumping on the bandwagon of collective panicking for those who got their geopolitics right early on. The same holds true of frequencies, a resource more scarce, arguably, than taxpayers’ money. Why would the French army intrude into cultural frequencies? Should the French be made aware of a dilemma between either allocating frequencies to foster and spread culture or to defend their homeland, a majority would probably come out in support to the latter option. True believers in democracy would nonetheless recommend that the question should be asked explicitly so that culture buffs realize that they are making an unpatriotic choice in the present circumstances.

More than ever, the war vs culture dilemma looks like the ultimate existential choice indeed. Though nicknamed “Father Victory” or “The Tiger”, Georges Clemenceau was of the opinion that “Warfare is too serious to be entrusted to the military.” Should the people have a voice? Only the future will tell. For now, the only certainty is that “If we were to sacrifice culture, Putin would have already won”, or so said Jochen Zenthöfer speaking for “SOS – Save Our Spectrum”.