From the standpoint of an owner and follower of this issue.
1) HD costs an additional license. It's really a "monopoly" on the technology, with Ibiquity being the licensing company, and a major stockholder being Clear Channel/(I Heart Media.) The AM system is flawed. It does not allow full bandwidth of 10khz, so the quality of sound is never as good as a well done AM mono or AM STEREO station kept analog and properly engineered and maintained. Many AM's have already shut of IBOC (HD) in even the larger markets. The AM system of HD causes interference on the side channels to the main licensed channel. A big flaw. The FM side, while it does allow more "channels" also divides some bandwidth, and as noted in previous posts has limited range. To begin to broadcast in HD on either band, a VERY LARGE license is paid to Ibiquity, and to most (non-involved with the technology via investment) owners, there is no viable reason to add it. SOME vehicles are adding this to receivers, but not enough to make it attractive to broadcasters. There's also the cost of additional transmission equipment.
Contacting a local station about HD is not going to have a bearing on growth. It's like asking your local grocer to double his inventory including his bills and staffing costs. Adding an HD channel not only has the cost of licensing and equipment, but if providing separate programming means more music royalties to pay, more costs to carry networks, and more load on whatever staff they already have if producing a complete set of additional channels. And, if only duplicating the main channel, there's no gain to the broadcaster at all.
2) AM or FM going away? Not likely. We won't see the all-digital option here in the USA for a long time.
Reason 1: FEMA and National Security officials are relying on today's mass communications for emergencies, and they know the reach of a new system being "all digital" would be limited at best. The public is not going to rush to buy new radios. They didn't do it for TV without government intervention, and look at the mess "digital" did to local TV's range and ability to penetrate storms. The government has invested too much in a (still flawed, but their design) EAS system to throw it away by not having "ears" to hear it on a "new" system.
Reason 2: The FCC is well aware that there are MANY small operators, the kind who are serving communities who will simply turn in their licenses and retire/quit if full-digital were mandated. Can you imagine how many (more) people at the local level would lose jobs across our country? Keeping up with today's technology costs enough! Our analog new transmitter for WION radio was $45k in 2005. It's still doing well, kept up, and serving up AM stereo broadband every day. Properly maintained and protected, transmitters can go 30 or more years and perform well for all of them! New all-digital AM? Not many small operators will invest. Our new FM transmitter we installed last week for our sister station was approaching the $20k mark after all the lightning, power, and other protection needed for even a small FM, now that transmitters are basically computers hooked to amplifiers. All digital FM? There's no need of it Standard FM when properly engineered does it's job well as is.
Reason 3: (Tied to reason 2) There's a "regulatory fee" paid every year by every station, every signal to the FCC. Can you imagine, if the amount of stations going dark from mandatory conversion then were not in existence to pay the FCC? Any government agency is greedy. They want to keep their jobs, and justify their jobs. Less stations mean less money, less money means less FCC officials and FCC employment.
And finally, you have to consider that in many countries making these sweeping changes in radio's delivery method that the degree of (their) government involvement can be much higher than in the United States. In countries where the government operates mass media, of course you'll see changes. The USA, thankfully is not that way yet, leaving decisions about programming, technology, and quality to local owners, hoping owners will do their best.
Finally: on the comment regarding AM revitalization, THIS is where local residents' voices are needed to encourage local stations to do more locally, and be less of a jukebox or talk-box. When AM's are thrown away as the "bastard child" of bigger FM's and just "anything" is thrown on them to keep stations on the air, there's no direct involvement in the communities they serve, therefore, the guilty operators who do this are the ones harming AM the most. Put intriguing programming on an AM, be "in touch" with the audience, and a station can succeed and be interesting to it's listeners. NO technology can save AM. It's at it's highest and best use now. Sad part is, most AM's are not operated to their full (technological) potential. AM can sound EXCELLENT if done properly. Badly maintained transmission systems, and REALLY BAD AM sections in new radios are to blame for any reputaiton for "inferior sound" that AM may have. What AM needs is good owner/operators who care and are capable of doing what radio was MEANT to do in programming and in engineering. I do commend FCC Commissioner Pai for his efforts on behalf of AM operators and their concerns, however! Community voices TO local stations in writing are very important, as they are kept by the station in the FCC public file.
A realistic view from a near 30 year veteran of radio, with 11 years ownership experience.
