There's market share and total adoption, usually those are different numbers, depending on the amount of competition.
Sometimes I drive down a road and can spot a WISP dish on almost every house, but split among 3-4 different WISPs. Harder to tell who has DSL, or even the occasional poor sucker still using Hughesnet or Exede if the dish is not visible from the road. There are also people who only use their phone, and don't have a smart TV or game console. Many people today don't own a computer, unless the kids have Chromebooks from school. Some of these people are happy with just cellular data. Then there are the people who don't want no stinkin' Internet. That's probably around 10%. Add those to the cellular only people, and the available market is probably around 80-90% depending on demographics in your area. Hence Mark's 85% number But assuming you have other WISP competition, your are not going to get that entire 85%, even if you have the best service and the lowest prices. Sometimes I feel we have reached the point where the only growth is poaching customers from other WISPs. Not really where I want to be, unless the competitor is really screwing up. -----Original Message----- From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:24 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation I’m sticking with my 85% number, and I have the customers and data to prove it. Mark > On Apr 15, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Matt Hoppes <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote: > > 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 -- 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
