So basically urban areas get more channels because the new tech uses less spectrum and everywhere else gets less because they will no longer be able to listen to the channels physically located in urban areas that they could pick up using the old tech.
Does the new tech make bandwidth sufficiently cheap that more stations can broadcast their content on multiple frequencies in physically separate locations(which is not uncommon for large FM stations to do today)? If so you'd basically get the same coverage using less spectrum by broadcasting the same station from more sites using the newer tech (not that this would happen if the initial investment in the physical equipment is anything large enough to cars about).
My folks (living in the upper peninsula of MI) went from being able to pick up all the stations from Greenbay from across the lake to being able to pick up one random analog station out of Canada.
Everyone ended up on satellite to compensate. But it was really viewed as yet another Urban vs. Rural fight with Rural getting the short end of the stick again.
Does the new tech make bandwidth sufficiently cheap that more stations can broadcast their content on multiple frequencies in physically separate locations(which is not uncommon for large FM stations to do today)? If so you'd basically get the same coverage using less spectrum by broadcasting the same station from more sites using the newer tech (not that this would happen if the initial investment in the physical equipment is anything large enough to cars about).