TV reception in rural America before cable

[bandit957]

Over the years, I've read countless articles about over-the-air broadcasting, but this is something I've never read much about.

Back in the days before cable, did rural areas and small towns have good reception of analog signals? Was the reception snowy at best? Did your area get all the networks, and were they all from the same city? I do remember reading that some areas in eastern Kentucky were among the last places in America to get reliable reception, before a station in Hazard signed on.

I was around before cable was popular, but I lived in an urban area near Cincinnati, so we could get maybe 5 to 7 stations pretty clearly. But when the Cincinnati affiliates preempted network shows (as they often did), we had to watch the Dayton stations, which were very snowy. I had to do this well into the 2000s, because by that time, I didn't have cable anymore, and our cable system didn't have Dayton channels anyway.

[ce929wax]

I know that nowadays, I can't get WWMT (3) over the air in Kalamazoo.  I live in Kalamazoo Township about a quarter of mile from the city limits.  I can sometimes pull in WOTV (41) and WXMI (17) since they have transmitters within 5 miles of me.  When I was a kid, back in the early/mid 1990s, I could get WWMT (3), WOOD (8), WZZM (13), WXMI (17), WGVU (35), and WOTV (41) pretty clearly in Allegan, Michigan unless there was a thunderstorm.  I could occasionally get stations from Lansing and South Bend (mostly South Bend) too.  I did pick up Milwaukee one night in 1996 or 1997.  IIRC, there was some severe thunderstorms coming across Lake Michigan somewhere between Holland and Muskegon with a line extending down to around the Quad Cities, because I remember watching Bill Steffen (WZZM at the time, now at WOOD) give out warnings and the meteorologist in Milwaukee do the same.

[KeithE4Phx]

Many rural areas, especially in mountainous areas in the west and northeast that didn't have cable, plus farming areas of the midwest far away from the cities, had low-power translators that were located on high ground, picked up the "parent" stations, and relayed them into the towns and valleys. 

Before cellphones, many of those translators operated on Channels 70-83, making them next to useless because UHF receiving technology just wasn't developed enough yet (that also killed many "regular" UHF stations in the 1950s & '60s that operated on lower channels).  By the time technology improved (early 1980s), the upper UHF channels were reallocated to cellphone services, the translators moved down to Channels 14-69, and were allowed higher power.  Also, many were even lower-powered VHF translators that covered maybe 5 miles or so.

Translators still exist, but now that most have converted to digital, their coverage is better in most cases.

I was in a similar situation, and not too far from you.  I grew up in Bloomington IN, which was considered part of the Indianapolis TV market, but not all stations came in well in our hilly part of Indiana.  Sometimes, we had to swing the antenna around to get stations in Terre Haute, Louisville, or occasionally Cincy (100 miles away), to watch a program that was preempted in Indy.  But for some reason, we had a fairly good shot to Chicago, so my dad could watch his Cubs games directly from WGN-TV, although through a snowy picture.

[jp the roadgeek]

My area did not get cable until late 1983 because my street had underground wiring.  Until then, we had a rooftop antenna.  My house was about 15 miles southwest of Hartford, CT, and we were able to get all Hartford/New Haven affiliates, WWLP and WGGB from Springfield, MA, and rimshot reception of WNEW (now WNYW) out of NYC, and maybe a couple of other NYC affiliates.  Once we got cable, we got all Hartford/New Haven, Springfield, and NYC affiliates, along with Channel 38 out of Boston (the system used to carry WLVI Channel 56, but dropped it before we got it).   I do remember having to use a little switch box with a turn knob to turn the antenna to a certain position to get a certain station.  The two tv sets upstairs were hooked to it, while there was a little black and white portable set in the kitchen downstairs with rabbit ears that got most of the Hartford/New Haven affiliates (I'm right in between the two cities, so while my street was in a rural area with hills all around, reception was pretty strong.

[KeithE4Phx]

I know that nowadays, I can't get WWMT (3) over the air in Kalamazoo.  I live in Kalamazoo Township about a quarter of mile from the city limits.  I can sometimes pull in WOTV (41) and WXMI (17) since they have transmitters within 5 miles of me.  When I was a kid, back in the early/mid 1990s, I could get WWMT (3), WOOD (8), WZZM (13), WXMI (17), WGVU (35), and WOTV (41) pretty clearly in Allegan, Michigan unless there was a thunderstorm.  I could occasionally get stations from Lansing and South Bend (mostly South Bend) too.  I did pick up Milwaukee one night in 1996 or 1997.  IIRC, there was some severe thunderstorms coming across Lake Michigan somewhere between Holland and Muskegon with a line extending down to around the Quad Cities, because I remember watching Bill Steffen (WZZM at the time, now at WOOD) give out warnings and the meteorologist in Milwaukee do the same.

What kind of antenna are you using?  Even for local stations, an outside antenna with directivity is mandatory.  A preamp may also be useful.  Rabbit ears for VHF and UHF loops won't work on digital TV.  The signal may be decent, but multipath is the killer. 

Back in the analog days, multipath from airplanes, trees, clouds, etc. would be the ghosts that you might see on some channels.  With digital, the signal is gone unless reception is 100% perfect.  Lightning? Heavy rain or a blizzard?  Fuggetaboutit.  There is little error correction in ATSC 1.0.  The new system that's being tested right now, ATSC 3.0 is supposed to improve things, but older TVs will be SOL, and newer ones might be able to work with a firmware update via the internet.

[bandit957]

My experience with digital is that reception is much, much, much worse now.

[jp the roadgeek]

My experience with digital is that reception is much, much, much worse now.

Mine is seasonal, especially with my downstairs TV.  There is a bush outside the window that affects it somewhat during the Summer months, plus I'll be putting an a/c unit in there once we get out of this February in May bs we've been experiencing, so the antenna will be on a slightly different trajectory.  Most of my market is doing the digital repack in August, and an ION television station is relocating its transmitter to the same site as where 4 other stations have theirs (NBC, FOX, CW, and PBS).  In the meantime, it seems like the existing towers at that site except for NBC have been operating on reduced power lately because reception has been more black screen than viewable despite being less than 10 miles away.  Meanwhile, CBS (15 miles north), and the ABC and MYNetwork signals (both 15 miles south) have been solid except when the wind is howling.  I use the RCA amplified flat digital antenna.

[KEVIN_224]

My area did not get cable until late 1983 because my street had underground wiring.  Until then, we had a rooftop antenna.  My house was about 15 miles southwest of Hartford, CT, and we were able to get all Hartford/New Haven affiliates, WWLP and WGGB from Springfield, MA, and rimshot reception of WNEW (now WNYW) out of NYC, and maybe a couple of other NYC affiliates.  Once we got cable, we got all Hartford/New Haven, Springfield, and NYC affiliates, along with Channel 38 out of Boston (the system used to carry WLVI Channel 56, but dropped it before we got it).   I do remember having to use a little switch box with a turn knob to turn the antenna to a certain position to get a certain station.  The two tv sets upstairs were hooked to it, while there was a little black and white portable set in the kitchen downstairs with rabbit ears that got most of the Hartford/New Haven affiliates (I'm right in between the two cities, so while my street was in a rural area with hills all around, reception was pretty strong.

I first had cable in New Britain, CT as early as 1981. It was United Cable then. We had WSBK, WWOR and WPIX. We may also have had WNEW (now WNYW-TV) for a time. The modern day Comcast system only carries WGBY-TV (PBS) channel 57 of Springfield, MA for any out-of-market stations. SYNDEX, which took effect in 1990, killed off WSBK and WPIX. WWOR would eventually feed their own EMI Service. WPIX was dropped on July 1, 1990, replaced with in-market channel 26 of New London (our ION affiliate now).

In southern Hartford County, I was good with Rattlesnake Mountain, about 4.5 miles to my northwest. However, I always had problems with Avon Mountain to the north-northwest. CBS 3 was rough with some ghosting. Channel 18 and the old channel 24 (PBS)? Forget it! I could never watch either one of them. I had to watch a snowy color signal from WEDN-TV channel 53 of Norwich for PBS. Many times, I would get WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven in better than channel 3. Their transmitter was/is on Madmere Mountain in Hamden, to my south-southwest. As for Springfield, MA? I could never get a reliable signal from any of their 3 UHF channels (22, 40 and 57).

[1995hoo]

I never lived in a rural area unless Copperas Cove, Texas, in the early 1970s counts (it certainly does to my New York City relatives!), and I don't remember it anyway because we moved when I was one year old.

But I do use antennas on our bedroom TVs (master bedroom and guestroom). The main difference I notice between antennas now and back in the '70s and '80s is the difference in what happens with interference or a poor signal. Back then you could often still watch. You'd get some snow on the screen and maybe the sound would get a little staticky, but for the most part you could watch. Nowadays you can't. The picture and sound will freeze up, pixellate, get all blocky, and generally become unwatchable.

I just replaced the rabbit ears in our master bedroom because my wife wanted something smaller and because our CBS affiliate didn't come through reliably. Based on the online reviews, I got a Mohu Beam antenna at Best Buy. It's amplified, rated for 50 miles, and it's allegedly omnidirectional so you can position it however you like. The latter part doesn't seem to be true because reception improved substantially when I rotated it so the long side faces towards the District of Columbia. But in terms of the 50-mile reception, that part seems accurate. It doesn't have the issues with the CBS affiliate except in torrential rain, and it pulls in a number of channels the rabbit ears didn't get, including WMAR-2 out of Baltimore and its four subchannels. (Bear in mind this is an indoor antenna.) I'm going to get another for the guestroom TV because the rabbit ears don't work as well in there due to where they have to be positioned. Haven't decided whether to install them on the other TVs as well. The antennas pull in the PBS subchannels, most notably WETA UK. My wife loves British comedies and the like, but she can stream a lot of that via Acorn TV so I haven't decided whether more antennas are needed.

This likely isn't an issue in a rural area, but it's worth knowing that HOAs and the like cannot legally prohibit anyone from putting up an outdoor antenna. They can regulate where it goes (say, directing it go on the back of the house for less visual impact on neighbors), though if the homeowner can then demonstrate inadequate reception they have to let him relocate it. In theory an outdoor antenna might make more sense than having three or four indoor antennas, but I don't want to be bothered putting one up and hiring an electrician to run wires and the like. To do it right, you need to use a motorized mount with a control box to let you rotate the antenna for different stations, and I don't see much reason for us to do that because the stations we watch come in fine on the indoor antenna except if the weather is exceptionally bad. My parents had that kind of setup prior to cable TV arriving in their neighborhood in 1986, but they took down the antenna years ago and I don't know whether they still have the control box. My father had it marked to show where to point it for all the different stations back then.   

Mohu's website has a feature where you punch in your location and it recommends an antenna.

[SP Cook]

Before it was called cable it was CATV, community antenna TV, which was just an antenna on top of a hill with ribbon wire connecting the homes.  The guy that owned this where I grew up was a certified crook.  Vastly over-charged and provided no service.  Later, after the BUD (big ugly dish) was invented he had to use modern coax, but still provided the absolute minimum service.  Cross channel interference, ghosting, snow.  The minimum. 

We provide the minimum has always been the cable mantra, big company or small.  The minimum.

The coming of the affordable BUD, and later the modern DBS dishes, was a godsend to rural America.   

[1995hoo]

I had forgotten this until you mentioned "CATV." Back when cable came to my parents' neighborhood, the people running the cable had to put down pavement markings as well as marking any lawns that had in-ground sprinkler systems. The pavement markings all said "CATV."

It's not unusual for condo and apartment buildings to have a community antenna on top of the building. Those sorts of places can restrict installation of satellite dishes and outdoor antennas.

[nexus73]

Good antenna + good location = Good reception.

If both of these factors were good, you were good to go!  Lose one and that was all she wrote back in the day.

Now y'all know why the monster satellite dishes sprang up so much in the Eighties...

Rick

[SP Cook]

Those sorts of places can restrict installation of satellite dishes and outdoor antennas.

A person has a virtually absolute right to install an antenna or dish, or both, in any place they own.  You see old deeds and HOA rules, especially in Florida, that purport to restrict TV antennas, but these are void per the FCC.  For example the deeds at The Villages have such a restriction, but it is unenforceable.   

As to condos and apartments and the like, a person can do anything they want on the space they control.  For example, if your balcony happens to face the right direction, you can put up a dish on a tripod and there is nothing the landlord or condo association can do about it.  They can, however, restrict what you do on the common spaces, such as the roof or exterior walls. 

There was an article circulating a few months back which claimed that most younger people believed that a TV antenna had to be some kind of illegal device because there is no way you could get free TV.

[bandit957]

A family member got an apartment in the '90s that had its own cable system - which was even worse than the usual cable system that our area had. They were told that if they wanted cable, they had to use this lousy system. But I know there's a federal regulation that says apartment owners have to let residents use the same cable system that the rest of the area has (if they choose to do so).

Also, federal rules say that if you live in an apartment, you can get cable TV or Internet without asking the landlord first. But when I got cable Internet in 2015, the installer from the cable company insisted on calling the landlord first, but only got his voicemail. Still, the installer installed it, and the landlord never said anything to me about it.

[1995hoo]

Those sorts of places can restrict installation of satellite dishes and outdoor antennas.

A person has a virtually absolute right to install an antenna or dish, or both, in any place they own.  You see old deeds and HOA rules, especially in Florida, that purport to restrict TV antennas, but these are void per the FCC.  For example the deeds at The Villages have such a restriction, but it is unenforceable.   

....

You're mostly correct, but the FCC regulation does permit the HOA or similar entity to designate certain preferred locations that you have to try first. You can't necessarily just go and put the antenna on a pole in your front yard right off the bat, for example.

My neighborhood's covenants once upon a time purported to prohibit exterior antennas, but they changed that when some of us pointed out that FCC rules invalidate that sort of restriction. The current rule says the antenna should go on the back of the house away from the street if possible unless you can demonstrate that reception is inadequate. FCC rules allow that sort of thing, and it's better to have that sort of rule than no rule at all because with no rule you'll invariably get some turkey who wants to put up a big ugly thing in his front yard just to annoy everyone else.

One of the tricky issues in an apartment or condo is that while you can put a dish or antenna on your balcony or patio (typically weighted down in a planter or similar) if it doesn't protrude beyond the area within your exclusive control, the building can prohibit you from drilling a hole in the wall or the door to run the cable from the device to your TV. I suppose one way around that is to have the door open a bit to run the cable, but most people I know find that unappealing because it lets in bugs in the summer or cold air in the winter.

[Rothman]

In my town growing up, we got decent reception on 3 out of Hartford, CT (CBS), and 22, 40 and 57 out of Springfield (NBC, ABC and PBS).  Later on, FOX 61 out of Hartford (I believe) showed up mostly snowy.

Of course, the antenna on the TV had to be adjusted just right and weather was a factor.

I have also heard that digital has made things worse.  Perhaps that was just a ploy to get people to pay up.

Nowadays, I just stream stuff off the Internet and put up with any buffering (rare now that connections are much better than in years past).

[1995hoo]

....

I have also heard that digital has made things worse.  Perhaps that was just a ploy to get people to pay up.

Nowadays, I just stream stuff off the Internet and put up with any buffering (rare now that connections are much better than in years past).

I kind of doubt that first proposition simply because cable and satellite TV have been around, and have been quite prevalent, for far longer than over-the-air digital TV broadcasts have been around.

Regarding streaming, we're planning to head that way to save money. I've had DirecTV since 2001, but their customer service has really infuriated me recently, so I reviewed what channels we watch and then examined various streaming services. We'd save around $80 a month if we switch from DirecTV to Vue. We'd also be able to watch the "cable" channels on the two upstairs TVs in the bedrooms. Right now we can't because they're not connected to DirecTV, the reason being that they charge you a fee to rent another converter box for each additional TV. Vue simply lets you watch on up to five devices at any one time, so the Amazon Fire TV Sticks we have upstairs will allow for streaming Vue (or other content like Acorn, which we already subscribe to) on those TVs. The reason we haven't taken the plunge yet was that we needed to upgrade one TV, which we did earlier this month, and we need to buy a couple of more things like an Amazon devices or an Apple TV to use with the new TV (the built-in apps won't do what we want). I've also been considering a DVR for the antenna, such as an Amazon Fire Recast or a Tablo device, but I'm not sure that's really necessary because we'd mostly use it just for my wife's PBS stuff, and I think most of that is available via Acorn or Passport.

Downside is, we won't be able to watch baseball anymore because MASN can't be streamed unless you subscribe to MLB.tv, and MLB.tv won't let you stream your local team's broadcasts without a bunch of shenanigans like using a VPN or other service (and reports are those can be hit-or-miss because MLB.tv assumes you're using them to circumvent the blackout rules). On the other hand, this baseball season is pretty much already over for the Nats, so I guess we wouldn't be missing much.

For anyone thinking about streaming TV, check out http://suppose.tv. Someone on another forum recommended it to me and it was extremely useful. Essentially what it does is you give it your ZIP Code and tell it what channels you consider "must-haves," then you drag those channels up and down to sort them in order of importance to you. The site then spits out suggestions for TV services that will give you what you wanted at various price points so you can compare your options. Great idea for a website. I think the most important thing when you explore changing TV services is not to look at how many channels you currently get versus how many you'd get from the new provider, but rather to look at what channels you actually watch and how many of those you would still get.

[NWI_Irish96]

For anyone thinking about streaming TV, check out http://suppose.tv. Someone on another forum recommended it to me and it was extremely useful. Essentially what it does is you give it your ZIP Code and tell it what channels you consider "must-haves," then you drag those channels up and down to sort them in order of importance to you. The site then spits out suggestions for TV services that will give you what you wanted at various price points so you can compare your options. Great idea for a website. I think the most important thing when you explore changing TV services is not to look at how many channels you currently get versus how many you'd get from the new provider, but rather to look at what channels you actually watch and how many of those you would still get.

Thanks for passing along that site.  I had essentially done a giant Excel spreadsheet listing my "must have" and "really want" channels and which providers offered them.  What I find really fascinating with this website is that if I move the Weather Channel into my "must have," my lowest priced option goes from $45/month to $110/month.  Crazy that I would have to pay $65 more per month to get the Weather Channel without giving up any other "must have" channels. 

[hbelkins]

Back in the days before cable, did rural areas and small towns have good reception of analog signals? Was the reception snowy at best? Did your area get all the networks, and were they all from the same city? I do remember reading that some areas in eastern Kentucky were among the last places in America to get reliable reception, before a station in Hazard signed on.

My understanding is that my dad's family was one of the first to own a television in my eastern Kentucky county. They lived in one of the highest areas of the county. Depending on which way the antenna was turned, they could get Channel 3 (WAVE) from Louisville, or Channel 3 (WSAZ) from Huntington. I'm not sure how good the reception was. My grandmother never did get cable, and I remember her getting four Lexington stations (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) plus at least one KET channel with good clarity.

We lived about a mile away from my grandmother, but at a lower elevation. On our antenna, we could pick up two Lexington stations, Channel 18 (WLEX-NBC) and Channel 27 (WKYT-CBS). When KET started broadcasting on Channel 46, the reception was spotty at best. We never could pick up the ABC affiliate, WBLG (Channel 62). Even after it changed call letters to WTVQ and frequency to Channel 36, we couldn't pick it up.

Cable came in the late 1970s, and even then it only carried the three Lexington major network stations, KET, and WTBS. No CNN. No ESPN. No Channel 57 from Hazard. And no Fox affiliate from Lexington. Those came later. However, the cable system in town did carry those channels.

We've come full-circle. Digital reception in my area is awful. In fact, maps published online for the purpose of determining reception show that the only channels I can get where I live now are those broadcast by the local TV station, WLJC, and its affiliates. We can't even get Hazard or the Lexington stations over the air.

[kphoger]

As to condos and apartments and the like, a person can do anything they want on the space they control.  For example, if your balcony happens to face the right direction, you can put up a dish on a tripod and there is nothing the landlord or condo association can do about it.  They can, however, restrict what you do on the common spaces, such as the roof or exterior walls. 

I work in cable.  We used to have a field tech who went to work for a satellite provider for a while instead, before he came back through the ever-revolving door in the cable industry.  He grew up in Morocco, he's a huge soccer fan, and he had two different satellite dishes at his apartment to cover the networks he wanted for the games.  One of them he mounted to the railing in front of the apartment, no big deal.  But the other one had to be on the opposite side of the building in order to get reception.  So, without asking permission from the property manager, he actually installed a pole-mounted satellite dish in the grass between the building and the street–poured concrete and everything.  He figured, once it was already set in concrete, what would they do about it?

[oscar]

Where I grew up in southern California, my area had cable TV back to the late 1960s, at least. Problem was we and thousands of other people lived in a valley. The valley ran west-east, but all the TV stations were to the south (San Diego) and northwest (Los Angeles), so over-the-air reception was worthless. That made us a captive market for the local cable company.

[SP Cook]

My understanding is that my dad's family was one of the first to own a television in my eastern Kentucky county. They lived in one of the highest areas of the county. Depending on which way the antenna was turned, they could get Channel 3 (WAVE) from Louisville, or Channel 3 (WSAZ) from Huntington. I'm not sure how good the reception was. My grandmother never did get cable, and I remember her getting four Lexington stations (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) plus at least one KET channel with good clarity.

Lexington is one of the "UHF islands".  Back when the FCC allotted TV channels to different towns, Lexington, and 11 other towns, did not get any.  Then they went back and filled these in with all UHF channels.  The oldest TVs did not even get UHF, it requires a different form of antenna, and the signals do not travel well in the mountains.  If they had not created these "UHF Islands" Lexington would never have had TV stations of its own, and the different parts of the market would get TV from Louisville, Huntington, Cincinnati, or even Bristol. 

Today, of course, the channel numbers do not mean anything, when they went to digital, the stations moved to new channels and its is just a computer trick that makes it appear they are on their old numbers.  A lot of the complaints about digital reception can be traced to the fact most stations are now really on UHF, no matter what the number says.

Oddly, I can get all my local stations with a $9 table top antenna, except one, which is the only one that is still on a VHF channel.  I cannot get it without an outdoor large antenna. 

IMHO, for years TV stations have not really cared about their OTA signals, as they get paid if you use a sat or cable, but it is just free if put up an antenna.  But, as this "cord cutting" becomes a thing, many people are going to want the network and local news content to supplement their Netflix and such, and stations will need to look at teaching people how to get things OTA again, like they did back in the 50s and 60s.

[1995hoo]

For anyone thinking about streaming TV, check out http://suppose.tv. Someone on another forum recommended it to me and it was extremely useful. Essentially what it does is you give it your ZIP Code and tell it what channels you consider "must-haves," then you drag those channels up and down to sort them in order of importance to you. The site then spits out suggestions for TV services that will give you what you wanted at various price points so you can compare your options. Great idea for a website. I think the most important thing when you explore changing TV services is not to look at how many channels you currently get versus how many you'd get from the new provider, but rather to look at what channels you actually watch and how many of those you would still get.

Thanks for passing along that site.  I had essentially done a giant Excel spreadsheet listing my "must have" and "really want" channels and which providers offered them.  What I find really fascinating with this website is that if I move the Weather Channel into my "must have," my lowest priced option goes from $45/month to $110/month.  Crazy that I would have to pay $65 more per month to get the Weather Channel without giving up any other "must have" channels. 

You are welcome. I had been trying to do the same exercise you describe in comparing TV options and then someone recommended that website. Much easier!

Another thing I find myself realizing is that DVR capability may not be especially vital because a lot of stuff is available on-demand these days, but I'm not totally convinced because I haven't yet found good on-demand sources for some of the sports I watch (mainly Formula One, unless I were to subscribe to their own streaming platform). But some of the so-called "cable replacement services" have cloud-based DVR service included in the price. It's not a real DVR because they're not going to store, say, 12,000 copies of the program if 12,000 subscribers want to save it. Instead they'll just keep the on-demand program around for some length of time. That's one thing that's going to be an adjustment for my wife: She sometimes uses the DVR as a storage unit for shows she wants to save indefinitely. Not a great option for cloud-based programming. I have not yet figured out an easy way to burn a streaming program to a DVD using my DVD recorder/VCR combination box, but I also haven't thought a whole lot about it.

We're leaning towards Vue in large part because we generally liked the interface better than Sling and the package options are a lot easier to decipher. The Vue program guide was a little weird, though–it uses a vertical arrangement instead of the more-conventional horizontal setup. That's relatively minor, though. The bigger issue was that when we watched hockey via Sling, the picture felt a bit choppy, for lack of a better word; my wife said it felt "mechanical" because when the puck was passed over a longer distance and the camera panned quickly, it felt like the broadcast couldn't keep up. I noticed during a British soccer game, I think a Spurs game, that the Sling picture was grainy enough that it was hard to see jersey numbers.

[jon daly]

I wouldn't consider most of Connecticut to be rural, so I was surprised to see my fellow Nutmeggers in this thread.

I came here because I was wondering what portion of the population was able to see the moon landing or events surrounding JFK's assassination on TV.

[Rothman]

Back in the days before cable, did rural areas and small towns have good reception of analog signals? Was the reception snowy at best? Did your area get all the networks, and were they all from the same city? I do remember reading that some areas in eastern Kentucky were among the last places in America to get reliable reception, before a station in Hazard signed on.

My understanding is that my dad's family was one of the first to own a television in my eastern Kentucky county. They lived in one of the highest areas of the county. Depending on which way the antenna was turned, they could get Channel 3 (WAVE) from Louisville, or Channel 3 (WSAZ) from Huntington. I'm not sure how good the reception was. My grandmother never did get cable, and I remember her getting four Lexington stations (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) plus at least one KET channel with good clarity.

We lived about a mile away from my grandmother, but at a lower elevation. On our antenna, we could pick up two Lexington stations, Channel 18 (WLEX-NBC) and Channel 27 (WKYT-CBS). When KET started broadcasting on Channel 46, the reception was spotty at best. We never could pick up the ABC affiliate, WBLG (Channel 62). Even after it changed call letters to WTVQ and frequency to Channel 36, we couldn't pick it up.

Cable came in the late 1970s, and even then it only carried the three Lexington major network stations, KET, and WTBS. No CNN. No ESPN. No Channel 57 from Hazard. And no Fox affiliate from Lexington. Those came later. However, the cable system in town did carry those channels.

We've come full-circle. Digital reception in my area is awful. In fact, maps published online for the purpose of determining reception show that the only channels I can get where I live now are those broadcast by the local TV station, WLJC, and its affiliates. We can't even get Hazard or the Lexington stations over the air.

I was always amazed by how many channels my grandparents got in Floyd County without cable.