That also is what we have found.
I was actually going to say 35% take rate -- but since I've gotten shot
down on previous e-mails where I've sent out "crazy" and "ridiculous"
statistics, I figured I'd send the higher end of the spectrum :)
On 4/15/20 9:12 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
I second the 50% rate. Probably 35% if you have some other competition
other than satellite. At either one of those rates, you should have
enough neighbor referrals that anything other than a yard sign would be
a waste.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:36 AM Matt Hoppes
<mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net
<mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
