[AFMUG] Market saturation

[Steve Jones]

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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Mark Radabaugh]

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  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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Matt Hoppes]

We see about 50% take rate even when we are the only option. 

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:26 AM, Mark Radabaugh  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  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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Lewis Bergman]

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> wrote:

> We see about 50% take rate even when we are the only option.
>
> > On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:26 AM, Mark Radabaugh  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 
> 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
>


-- 
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Matt Hoppes]

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 
> wrote:


We see about 50% take rate even when we are the only option.

 > On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:26 AM, Mark Radabaugh 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
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 
 >> 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



--
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Mark Radabaugh]

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  
> 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 
>> > > wrote:
>>We see about 50% take rate even when we are the only option.
>> > On Apr 15, 2020, at 6:26 AM, Mark Radabaugh >> 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
>>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 
>> >> 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
>> -- 
>> 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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Ken Hohhof]

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  On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:24 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
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  
> 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 
>> > <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 ><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
>>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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Lewis Bergman]

Thats great. That shows the variability between markets.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> 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  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  >>> 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
> >>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 
> >> >> 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
> >> --
> >> 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
>


-- 
Lewis Bergman
325-439-0533 Cell
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Brian Webster]

As Ken mentioned there are 2 different numbers to talk about. YOUR market 
capture rate and total broadband adoption rate for a given area. In the 
broadband mapping program we spent a lot of time on this topic. The best way I 
can suggest you look at this is to first find the latest data on broadband 
adoption for your state. That number should be typically between 70 and 80 
percent. Meaning that of all households in a state, that percentage is 
subscribed to some sort of broadband. It is a total aggregate number, not any 
particular carrier. The next step then would be to figure out the number of 
homes your network passes or can serve (you do know that don’t you?). The 
further segment that number to the homes you are the only option and those that 
you have competition. 

 

For the homes passed where you are the only option, you should be able to 
achieve the state adoption rate as your market capture percentage. If not you 
may want to consider spending time on your marketing and product placement 
efforts. The fish don’t just jump in to the boat. You do have some competition 
in the form of cellular and satellite but with proper advertising and marketing 
efforts you  should be the major player.

 

For the homes you pass where there is competition, figuring out a good 
penetration rate will be difficult depending on who the competition is. If it’s 
only DSL you should be able to garner a higher take rate IF you are doing a 
good job on marketing. Competing against the major cable companies, they do a 
decent job so that’s real competition. Smaller providers will be a mixed bag 
depending on how well those companies are run and their product offerings.

 

The biggest and first thing that needs to be known if your total homes passed. 
You can get a good idea of that by adding up the household counts for the 
census blocks you show as served in your FCC form 477 filing because those are 
supposed to show where you can serve, not just the ones your billing platform 
shows where you have customers. You have been filing your 477 reports haven’t 
you?

 

While those pain in the rump programs are required, you can take those efforts 
and put the results to uses that do help with your business.

 

If you have been filing the form 477, I can even pull the latest FCC form 477 
data and tell you which blocks you filed have other competition broadband in 
them. This makes it easy to tally your homes passed both with and without 
competition. Then you can use those results and compare them against your 
customer data (and map those) to investigate the areas in your network where 
your market rate seems to be weak and could benefit from improved efforts. Do 
more to maximize those markets you have already invested in.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Lewis Bergman
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 2:02 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

 

Thats great. That shows the variability between markets.

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

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  
> 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 
>> > <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 ><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
>>mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What percentage of rural customers would you all consider saturated?
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Dev]

477’s in our area are almost entirely works of fiction, sometime fantastic 
ones, like coverage where there are no residences, businesses, roads, or zero 
presence by the business filing the 477.

I think the relevant term is addressable market. There will always be 
opportunities which don’t pay, customers who aren’t interested but maybe should 
be, etc. Those will continue to be outside of the addressable market. 

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Brian Webster  wrote:
> 
> As Ken mentioned there are 2 different numbers to talk about. YOUR market 
> capture rate and total broadband adoption rate for a given area. In the 
> broadband mapping program we spent a lot of time on this topic. The best way 
> I can suggest you look at this is to first find the latest data on broadband 
> adoption for your state. That number should be typically between 70 and 80 
> percent. Meaning that of all households in a state, that percentage is 
> subscribed to some sort of broadband. It is a total aggregate number, not any 
> particular carrier. The next step then would be to figure out the number of 
> homes your network passes or can serve (you do know that don’t you?). The 
> further segment that number to the homes you are the only option and those 
> that you have competition. 
>  
> For the homes passed where you are the only option, you should be able to 
> achieve the state adoption rate as your market capture percentage. If not you 
> may want to consider spending time on your marketing and product placement 
> efforts. The fish don’t just jump in to the boat. You do have some 
> competition in the form of cellular and satellite but with proper advertising 
> and marketing efforts you  should be the major player.
>  
> For the homes you pass where there is competition, figuring out a good 
> penetration rate will be difficult depending on who the competition is. If 
> it’s only DSL you should be able to garner a higher take rate IF you are 
> doing a good job on marketing. Competing against the major cable companies, 
> they do a decent job so that’s real competition. Smaller providers will be a 
> mixed bag depending on how well those companies are run and their product 
> offerings.
>  
> The biggest and first thing that needs to be known if your total homes 
> passed. You can get a good idea of that by adding up the household counts for 
> the census blocks you show as served in your FCC form 477 filing because 
> those are supposed to show where you can serve, not just the ones your 
> billing platform shows where you have customers. You have been filing your 
> 477 reports haven’t you?
>  
> While those pain in the rump programs are required, you can take those 
> efforts and put the results to uses that do help with your business.
>  
> If you have been filing the form 477, I can even pull the latest FCC form 477 
> data and tell you which blocks you filed have other competition broadband in 
> them. This makes it easy to tally your homes passed both with and without 
> competition. Then you can use those results and compare them against your 
> customer data (and map those) to investigate the areas in your network where 
> your market rate seems to be weak and could benefit from improved efforts. Do 
> more to maximize those markets you have already invested in.
>  
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com/>
>  
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Lewis Bergman
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 2:02 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation
>  
> Thats great. That shows the variability between markets.
>  
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Mark Radabaugh  <mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:
>> 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 
>> > > > <mailto: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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Mike Hammett]

Coverage is coverage, regardless if there's anyone there to use it. Obviously 
it has to be accurate, but a lack of market potential doesn't negate the lack 
of coverage. 


I think the rule is you have to be able to serve them within some standard 
installation interval. If you have easy or no permitting, a pile of Rohn 25 
sections, and the schedule availability, you could go drop a 200' tower 
anywhere in a county to get any customer anywhere. I don't recommend that, but 
if that's "normal" for you, then so be it. We all know reality is much 
different than that and the 477 needs to reflect that. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Dev"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:52:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation 

477’s in our area are almost entirely works of fiction, sometime fantastic 
ones, like coverage where there are no residences, businesses, roads, or zero 
presence by the business filing the 477. 


I think the relevant term is addressable market. There will always be 
opportunities which don’t pay, customers who aren’t interested but maybe should 
be, etc. Those will continue to be outside of the addressable market. 





On Apr 15, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Brian Webster < i...@wirelessmapping.com > wrote: 



As Ken mentioned there are 2 different numbers to talk about. YOUR market 
capture rate and total broadband adoption rate for a given area. In the 
broadband mapping program we spent a lot of time on this topic. The best way I 
can suggest you look at this is to first find the latest data on broadband 
adoption for your state. That number should be typically between 70 and 80 
percent. Meaning that of all households in a state, that percentage is 
subscribed to some sort of broadband. It is a total aggregate number, not any 
particular carrier. The next step then would be to figure out the number of 
homes your network passes or can serve (you do know that don’t you?). The 
further segment that number to the homes you are the only option and those that 
you have competition. 

For the homes passed where you are the only option, you should be able to 
achieve the state adoption rate as your market capture percentage. If not you 
may want to consider spending time on your marketing and product placement 
efforts. The fish don’t just jump in to the boat. You do have some competition 
in the form of cellular and satellite but with proper advertising and marketing 
efforts you should be the major player. 

For the homes you pass where there is competition, figuring out a good 
penetration rate will be difficult depending on who the competition is. If it’s 
only DSL you should be able to garner a higher take rate IF you are doing a 
good job on marketing. Competing against the major cable companies, they do a 
decent job so that’s real competition. Smaller providers will be a mixed bag 
depending on how well those companies are run and their product offerings. 

The biggest and first thing that needs to be known if your total homes passed. 
You can get a good idea of that by adding up the household counts for the 
census blocks you show as served in your FCC form 477 filing because those are 
supposed to show where you can serve, not just the ones your billing platform 
shows where you have customers. You have been filing your 477 reports haven’t 
you? 

While those pain in the rump programs are required, you can take those efforts 
and put the results to uses that do help with your business. 

If you have been filing the form 477, I can even pull the latest FCC form 477 
data and tell you which blocks you filed have other competition broadband in 
them. This makes it easy to tally your homes passed both with and without 
competition. Then you can use those results and compare them against your 
customer data (and map those) to investigate the areas in your network where 
your market rate seems to be weak and could benefit from improved efforts. Do 
more to maximize those markets you have already invested in. 

Thank you, 
Brian Webster 
www.wirelessmapping.com 

From: AF [ mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Lewis Bergman 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 2:02 PM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation 


Thats great. That shows the variability between markets. 



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Mark Radabaugh < m...@amplex.net > wrote: 


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 "craz

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Chris Fabien]

In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get
no higher than 75%.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones 
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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Brian Webster]

That’s within the range I would expect based on a mature broadband market. They 
say it takes at least 2 years to hit a good market penetration rate.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Fabien
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:19 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

 

In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get no 
higher than 75%.

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones  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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Brian Webster]

Data from 2017 by state.

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/10600/us-home-broadband-penetration-by-state/

 

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:04 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

 

That’s within the range I would expect based on a mature broadband market. They 
say it takes at least 2 years to hit a good market penetration rate.

 

Thank you,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Fabien
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:19 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

 

In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get no 
higher than 75%.

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones  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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Cameron Crum]

To add to what Mike said, there is no stipulation that there be a road,
house, or anything else for that matter in the deployment section of the
477. It is simply where you can provide service and as he pointed out, that
is very loosely defined. As there is no hard standard for what providing
service really means, and no standard for confirming what is reported, it
can easily be taken advantage of. If you are not using this to your own
advantage, then I suppose that is your choice., but I know a lot of wisps
who would rather not have govt money competing with them, or alternatively,
would like to gt some of that money for themselves.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:58 PM Brian Webster 
wrote:

> Data from 2017 by state.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.statista.com/chart/10600/us-home-broadband-penetration-by-state/
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Brian Webster
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:04 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation
>
>
>
> That’s within the range I would expect based on a mature broadband market.
> They say it takes at least 2 years to hit a good market penetration rate.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chris Fabien
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:19 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation
>
>
>
> In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get
> no higher than 75%.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones 
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation

[Mark Radabaugh]

Seems to match up with what we are seeing.   Ohio’s number is high but likely 
skewed down by the SE Appalachia area of the state where availability is still 
poor.

Mark

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 7:58 PM, Brian Webster  wrote:
> 
> 
> Data from 2017 by state.
>  
> https://www.statista.com/chart/10600/us-home-broadband-penetration-by-state/
>  
>  
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>  
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brian Webster
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:04 PM
> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation
>  
> That’s within the range I would expect based on a mature broadband market. 
> They say it takes at least 2 years to hit a good market penetration rate.
>  
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>  
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Fabien
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:19 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Market saturation
>  
> In our rural areas, with FTTH on a road for several years, we usually get no 
> higher than 75%.
>  
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 12:30 AM Steve Jones  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