We see about 50% take rate even when we are the only option. > On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:26 AM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: > > 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
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
