The problem with AM reception is the noise and because of the type of transmission(amplitude modulation...AM) the program is the same as the electrical noise and the two can't be separated. The reason it came into being with this type of transmission is the other, frequency modulation...FM, hadn't been discovered yet and AM was how radio waves carried program info. in the beginning.
But in 1933 Edwin Armstrong invented FM RF transmission and it was always known that AM was plagued with interference from any electrical pollution and FM, because you could separate the AM from the FM in the receiver as the FM audio was separate from the AM transmissions and most noise is AM.
In the 1930s with the discovery of frequency modulated audio transmission the commercial AM band should have been converted to FM. The frequency range of 530 to 1600 klz could have been kept and signal would still travel the same with skywave at night. Carrier frequencies the same just audio not amplitude modulation. Then when the other FM band was set up the original could be called FM1 and the other FM2. The lower band of 530 to 1600 klz would be kept for the longer transmission range, the other for more local. It would, because of the clean signal have better fidelity than the AM would. Or when the other FM band was set up the two could have mated with one larger commercial band but I think band 1 and 2 would be good. The FM transmission on the lower 530 to 1600 klz may not have quite the fidelity still of the higher 88-108 mhz wider bandwidth it would be way better than it was and is now plagued with all the interference and radios tuners could have a bandwidth switch like some better radios do now for high fidelity setting on the lower FM band.
To this day the "AM" band(not AM anymore) wouldn't be killed by all the modern day things that have killed it. Our transmitters would then be for one band or the other where it would be permitted. Most likely the lower. Then the TV bands could have been worked around the radio bands like they have been.
Why is it that I have such good ideas of what should happen, or should have happened, but the government people don't?
The question may be asked, but you would have to have everyone get new receivers but when the FM band was set up in the early 1940s didn't you have to get a new radio anyways?
Oh well, what if, what should have been, why can't they, talked about all the time.
The current FM band is approximately 20 Mhz in size. The AM band currently is 1.2 Mhz approximately. FM signals are spaced at 0.2 Mhz (200 Khz) and there are about 100 of them.
If FM with existing fidelity was on the AM band, you'd have about 6 channels. Not many.
You could reduce the fidelity, but you still wouldn't have many channels.
You can't expand the AM band any further, as the 160 meter band is just above it (1.8-2 Mhz).
Space is the problem.
If I recall correctly, one of the big reasons FM use took so long to really kick in for the general public was because the FM receivers were not only more complicated but more expensive too. In the 1930s, a significant amount of household radios were home built, and only about 40% of the population even owned any kind of AM radio yet. When Halstead invented leaky cable (part 15) in 1939 for travelers information and airport communications and so forth, he had regularly commented how using FM would be the better option. the only reason he went with AM was because that's what cars had in them (and then only about 60% of them). FM receivers were still a specialty item, rare that anyone had them, and they were both to prohibitively expensive to build or buy. The primary reason AM became king was because of simplicity and cost of the receivers.
On a semi-related topic, in regard to Artesian's reference to the amount of frequency space availability; - that's why free OTA TV reception capabilities has been gradually decreasing over the last several decades and is primed now to shrink even more:
Your Local ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC Station May Have to Give Up Their Free OTA TV Channel & Move https://cordcuttersnews.com/your-local-abc-cbs-fox-or-nbc-station-may-have-to-give-up-their-free-ota-tv-channel-move-roku-adds-22-new-channels-more-the-top-cord-cutting-stories-from-april-2026/
"... One prominent development concerned the future of free over-the-air television signals. A company filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission calling for the repurposing of UHF broadcast spectrum in channels 28 through 36 for future 6G wireless internet services. The proposal targeted frequencies between 554 and 608 MHz and, if approved, would compel more than 40 percent of U.S. television stations—including many local ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC affiliates—to vacate their current assignments. Affected stations would transition into shared broadcasting arrangements based on the NextGen TV standard, also known as ATSC 3.0, allowing multiple channels to operate efficiently on fewer frequencies..."