De Kalb County

DeKalb County, Alabama (latest available ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates unless noted)

• Population: ~71,700 (2023 estimate)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~39–40
  • Under 18: ~24–25%
  • 65 and over: ~17–18%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%
• Race/ethnicity:
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~73–76%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~16–19%
  • Black or African American: ~2–4%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1–2%
  • Asian: ~0.5–1%
  • Two or more races/Other: ~2–4%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~26,000
  • Average household size: ~2.7–2.9
  • Family households: ~70–74% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~55–60% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~30–35%
  • Nonfamily households: ~26–30%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~73–76%

DeKalb County, AL snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~71K; adults ~54–55K.
• Email users: ~50–56K (≈90–92% of adults use email; including some teens pushes total toward the high end).
• Age distribution among email users:
  • 18–49: ~58–62%
  • 50–64: ~20–22%
  • 65+: ~18–20% (Email adoption is high across ages but modestly lower for seniors.)
• Gender split: Roughly even; ~51% female, ~49% male among users (tracks population).
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband subscription: ~70–75% of households.
  • Device access (computer or smartphone): ~85–88% of households.
  • Mobile-only internet homes: ~10–15%.
  • Usage increasingly smartphone-centered for lower-income and rural residents; email commonly accessed via mobile apps.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • ~92 residents per square mile; population clusters in/around Fort Payne and Rainsville, with widely dispersed rural areas on Sand Mountain and Lookout Mountain.
  • Fixed broadband is strongest along I‑59/US‑11 corridors; coverage is spottier in outlying rural terrain, though ongoing state/federal grants are expanding fiber and fixed wireless options.

Mobile phone usage in DeKalb County, Alabama — 2025 snapshot

Baseline

• Population: roughly 72,000 residents; about 26,000 households. Largely rural with small towns (e.g., Fort Payne, Rainsville) and significant mountainous/valley terrain.

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: approximately 45,000–50,000 (assumes ~75–77% adults and 80–86% smartphone adoption in a rural Alabama context).
• Total smartphone users (all ages): roughly 50,000–55,000.
• Smartphone-only households (no fixed home broadband): about 6,000–8,000 households (≈22–30% of households), likely above Alabama’s average due to rurality and income, but moderated in fiber-served areas.
• Prepaid share: estimated 35–45% of mobile lines (higher than state average, consistent with rural/price-sensitive markets).
• Device mix trends: strong Android share, with iOS under the state urban average; multi-line family plans common; growing use of fixed wireless access (FWA) as a home internet substitute in pockets lacking cable/fiber.

Demographic breakdown (and how it shapes mobile behavior)

• Age
  • 65+: about 18–20% of residents; smartphone adoption lower than younger cohorts but rising (roughly 60–70% among seniors). Higher-than-average reliance on large-screen devices and voice/SMS; some still mobile-only for internet where fiber/cable is absent.
  • Youth: high smartphone penetration among teens; school-issued devices and E-Rate Wi‑Fi ecosystems supplement mobile but do not eliminate mobile dependence.
• Race/ethnicity and language
  • Hispanic/Latino population is notably higher than the state average (roughly 15–18% vs ~6% statewide). This raises the share of mobile-first users and increases reliance on WhatsApp/Meta apps, Spanish-language content, and prepaid plans.
  • Black population share is well below state average; white, non-Hispanic is a larger share than Alabama overall.
• Income and work patterns
  • Median household income below the Alabama median. Price sensitivity supports prepaid, budget Android devices, and mobile-only internet. Shift-based manufacturing/processing jobs encourage app-based scheduling and messaging, often on personal phones.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Mobile networks
  • 4G LTE is strong along primary corridors (e.g., I‑59, AL‑35/75) and in towns; coverage gaps persist in hollows and on/around Lookout Mountain and Little River Canyon areas.
  • 5G low-/mid-band from major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile) covers most populated areas; mmWave is absent. 5G brings coverage breadth more than huge capacity gains outside Fort Payne/Rainsville.
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence along major routes and public safety sites; improvements have reduced some dead zones but terrain still creates reliability issues off-corridor.
• Fixed broadband (important for mobile dependence)
  • Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative (FTC), based in the county, has deployed extensive fiber-to-the-home across much of the Sand Mountain plateau communities—an atypical strength for a rural Alabama county.
  • Cable broadband is available in and around Fort Payne; outside town centers, availability thins.
  • Where fiber/cable are absent, residents lean on:
    • Fixed wireless access (T‑Mobile/Verizon) where 5G signal quality is sufficient.
    • Legacy DSL or WISPs in a few pockets, with variable performance.
• Public connectivity
  • Libraries, schools, and municipal buildings provide Wi‑Fi that backstops mobile plans, especially for homework and telehealth in lower-income and Spanish-speaking households.

How DeKalb differs from Alabama overall

• Bimodal connectivity: The county shows a sharper split than the state average—towns and cooperative-served areas enjoy robust fiber (driving higher in-home broadband adoption), while valleys and remote tracts remain mobile-first/mobile-only. Many similarly rural Alabama counties lack this level of local FTTH from a telecom cooperative.
• Higher Hispanic share: Compared with the state, DeKalb’s larger Hispanic/Latino population correlates with more prepaid usage, mobile-only households, and heavy use of OTT messaging—shifting app and language preferences relative to statewide norms.
• Terrain-driven reliability gaps: Mountain/valley topography creates more pronounced dead zones and indoor coverage variability than the state average, even where maps show nominal 4G/5G coverage.
• FWA uptake: Take-up of T‑Mobile/Verizon 5G Home Internet is likely above the state average in unserved/underserved pockets, while fibered towns skew toward wired—producing a wider spread in access modes than seen statewide.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Estimates synthesize recent ACS population/household counts, rural smartphone adoption ranges from national surveys, and known patterns in Alabama’s rural markets. Exact county-level mobile subscription figures are not published; ranges reflect the county’s rural profile, income mix, and the unusually strong local fiber footprint.

Here’s a concise, decision-ready snapshot for DeKalb County, Alabama. Figures are modeled estimates using Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. platform adoption, adjusted for rural AL demographics, and Census population structure; county-level platform data isn’t directly published.

Quick snapshot

• Population: ~72,000. Estimated 13+ population: ~59,500.
• Monthly social media users (13+): ~45,000–48,000 (about 75–80% penetration).

Most‑used platforms (share of 13+ residents; monthly)

• YouTube: 70–75%. Heavy for music, how‑to/DIY, sports highlights, kids’ content.
• Facebook: 62–68%. Dominant for local news, churches, schools, Marketplace, community groups.
• Instagram: 32–38%. Strong with 18–34; local boutiques, food, sports teams.
• TikTok: 28–34%. Teens/20s; trends, local events, sports, restaurant discovery.
• Pinterest: 22–28%. Women 25–54; home, crafts, recipes, weddings.
• Snapchat: 22–27%. Teens/college; daily messaging, streaks, school sports.
• WhatsApp: 15–22% overall; 40–55% among Hispanic/Latino residents (family, cross‑border comms).
• X (Twitter): 10–14%. News, sports, weather alerts; small but vocal.
• Reddit: 8–12%. Tech/gaming, DIY, hunting/outdoors subs.
• Nextdoor: 4–7%. Lower in rural areas; HOA/neighbor alerts where available.

Age patterns (who uses what)

• 13–17: ~90–95% on at least one platform. Core: Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; Instagram secondary; minimal Facebook posting (use for groups/teams).
• 18–29: ~85–90%. YouTube, Instagram, TikTok lead; Snapchat strong; Facebook for groups/marketplace; X/Reddit niche.
• 30–49: ~80–85%. Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram rising (family/kids, small businesses); Pinterest for home/lifestyle.
• 50–64: ~70–75%. Facebook first, YouTube second; Pinterest among women; limited TikTok adoption growing.
• 65+: ~55–60%. Facebook primary (grandkids, churches, local updates); YouTube for news/how‑to; minimal others.

Gender breakdown (approximate)

• Overall active user base: ~52–55% women, ~45–48% men.
• Platform skews: Facebook and Pinterest skew female; Instagram slightly female; YouTube, Reddit, X skew male. TikTok near even.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first behavior: Very active Facebook Groups for schools, youth sports, churches, city/county info, festivals, yard sales; Marketplace is a go‑to for local buying/selling.
• Local information diet: Storm and road updates, school closures, church livestreams primarily via Facebook and YouTube; local sports highlights spread via Facebook Reels/YouTube Shorts/TikTok.
• Small business discovery: Boutiques, food trucks, trades, and events promoted on Facebook Pages/Groups and Instagram Stories/Reels; TikTok increasingly drives foot traffic with short, location-tagged clips.
• Messaging realities: Snapchat (teens/college) and Messenger dominate day‑to‑day chat; WhatsApp is important within the Hispanic community.
• Content styles that work: Short vertical video, before/after DIY, local faces, giveaways; posts with clear “where/when/price” details see higher engagement.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm) and Sun–Mon for community/news; school-year spikes around extracurriculars; weather events create sharp surges.

Method notes and sources

• Modeled from Pew Research Center Social Media Use (2023–2024), U.S. Census/ACS age structure for DeKalb County, and typical rural/Southeast platform skews. County-level platform counts are not directly published; figures are best-available estimates with conservative ranges.