Food for thought.
"Allowing" this fully digital AM signal by choice is not necessarily a thing to cheer or be upset about, either way. The FCC's decision simply means there's a new playtoy for those with money to burn in (AM) radio ownership. At the present time, that's not a common situation. You won't see small town America locally owned stations doing this. Going "All digital" eliminates nearly all of the current receiving audience. Knowledge-of and use of HD by the public has not caught on as a main source of listening, and even with the receivers currently designed for Hybrid Digital being capable of receiving, (mainly automatic in cars) use by businesses and homes that tune-to and support AM is not high enough to warrant investment by the broadcaster when traded off for the loss of "standard AM" listeners.
In our example, after 16 years of improvements on my station, including an enlarged AM daytime signal, two FM translators, FULL width AM stereo processing/ broadcasting, and streaming of the AM stereo product (for awareness of the quality of well done Analog AM) our AM still is the major source of income. Translators are required to always simulcast the AM, but many of our businesses that tune in locally and advertise with us use the AM because our FM at 250 watts ERP does not penetrate thick walled older buildings in the valley of our town. The translators lend aid to those who simply can't receive AM (after dark, for instance) but, in our case, our AM was standing alone, making money without FM, streaming, or other auxiliary means for at least our first six years of operation. It remains the strongest of the listenership when we survey. One cannot argue that "going all digital" will bring listeners unless you're speaking of geeks and hobbyists.
I also don't buy into the "worriers" theory that this is a beginning of sunsetting of AM. Why? The FCC is greedy. They want their regulatory fees and other fees from as many entities as they can keep. Sunsetting analog AM would be the end of many licensees, including me. I'd see no advantage to the change, and could not, in small market USA recoup my investment to a hyothetical mandate for new transmission equipment. No bank is going to touch broadcasters these days for loans thanks to the muck-ups and poor management of the big companies and how the FDIC views "media" companies. There's also no reason to force the thinning of the AM band. AM cannot be used for any other purpose effectively than it's current "highest and best use." Unlike the recent C-band carving and repurposing, and that of TV, AM uniquely serves its broadcasters as a good income if they run their stations well....it serves it's listeners by the sheer AVAILABILITY of it in it's current form, and when it has owners that care, it can sound EXCELLENT to the ear. It has no other desirable use in the bigger picture of spectrum. Unfortunately, the thing failing in AM is the owners caring about the quality of what goes out of their antennas, not the medium itself. The word "Digital" being applied to AM is simply a buzzword in an effort to show that AM "can" be digital and be perceived like other digital means of today. It may be helpful only in the existence of FCC news releases for the public to be re-told that AM exists. All-Digital AM is not a threat to current broadcasters, not attractive to most as the cost will be huge to convert, and ultimately is a wonderful accomplishment brought to fruition by engineers, but not one you'll see in use in very many places. At least not in the lifetimes of most of us.
