I’m thinking around 85%. Some depends on your market. We have a few areas where I think about 5% of the housing is abandoned. Take another 10% that are not interested. There is an older population that just isn’t interested or that their needs are met by iPads and cellular.
That 85% number seems consistent for us on both wireless and fiber routes. Mark > On Apr 15, 2020, at 12:29 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What percentage of rural customers would you all consider saturated? > > I have access to some new datasets and it disturbing. It's good disturbing, > but unanticipated. > > May be bad. > > Is there a rural percentage of capture that is considered saturated as a > standard? 100 percent is what we all want. But there are customers who dont > want, or simply cannot afford internet access. There has to be some numbers > out there. > > I doubt government numbers count, since government is dumb. Where does a > simpleton such as myself go to find out what is considered saturated? > > Say I touch 1000 households. What is the percentage of capture that marketing > is no longer recommended? If I have 500 of them, I'd think that's pretty > good, maybe even saturated between lack of need, want, or ability and offset > by whatever percentage per terrain would be co sided unservicable. I'd assume > my midwest flatlands unservicable would be different than Johnny paychecks > Arkansas hills unservicable. > > These numbers have to be somewhere > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
