Cochise County

Key demographics — Cochise County, Arizona (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates)

• Population: ~126,000
• Age:
  • Median age: ~40 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 18–64: ~57%
  • 65 and over: ~22%
• Sex: ~52% male, ~48% female
• Hispanic/Latino (of any race): ~36%
• Race (alone; may overlap with Hispanic origin):
  • White: ~78%
  • Black or African American: ~5%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~3%
  • Asian: ~2%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: <1%
  • Two or more races: ~6%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~50,000
  • Average household size: ~2.45
  • Family households: ~63% of households

Notes: Estimates rounded; totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding and the Hispanic-origin measure overlapping with race. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5-year tables (e.g., DP02, DP05).

Cochise County, AZ snapshot (estimates)

• Email users: ≈90–95k residents. Basis: population ≈126k (ACS), ≈100k adults; national email adoption among adults ~90%+ (Pew-like benchmarks), slightly lower for 65+.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users):
  • 18–34: ~29%
  • 35–54: ~34%
  • 55–64: ~15%
  • 65+: ~22% Notes: Older adults have high but somewhat lower adoption than younger groups.
• Gender split among users: roughly 50/50; national email use shows minimal gender differences, so local split should mirror population.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Broadband subscription: ≈84–87% of households; ~10–15% report no home internet; ~6–8% are smartphone‑only. Adoption has inched up since 2019.
  • Computer/smartphone access is >90% of households when including mobile devices.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Large, rural county (~6,200 sq mi) with ≈20 people per sq mi; connectivity clusters around Sierra Vista–Fort Huachuca, Douglas, Bisbee, and the I‑10 corridor (Benson), with sparser options in remote valleys and mountain areas.
  • Fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts have expanded coverage, but rural last‑mile remains a constraint, which likely accounts for most of the remaining non‑email users.

Figures are synthesized from ACS population/Internet indicators and national email adoption patterns.

Below is a concise, decision‑ready snapshot of mobile phone usage in Cochise County, Arizona, with emphasis on where it diverges from statewide patterns. Figures are best‑available estimates derived from U.S. Census Bureau ACS “Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions” (S2801, 2022–2023), FCC broadband/mobile coverage materials, NTIA Indicators of Broadband Need, and widely cited national research on device adoption patterns.

Headline takeaways specific to Cochise County

• Mobile adoption is high but a notch below Arizona’s big‑metro average, with more households relying on phones as their primary internet.
• Coverage and performance are strong along major corridors and population centers (Sierra Vista, Douglas, Bisbee, Benson/Willcox, Fort Huachuca), but rural and mountainous areas see more dead zones and slower 5G buildout than the state overall.
• Demographics (older age profile, lower median income, higher Hispanic share, and a large military/veteran community) shape distinctive usage: more prepaid plans and “smartphone‑only” internet, slower device refresh cycles, and strong FirstNet/public‑safety coverage around Fort Huachuca.

User estimates (order‑of‑magnitude, with method notes)

• Households with smartphones
  • Cochise County: roughly mid–high 80s percent of households have a smartphone.
  • Arizona statewide: generally low 90s percent.
  • Implication: Cochise trails the state by several points, consistent with older/rural counties.
• Households that are mobile‑only for internet (no home fixed broadband)
  • Cochise County: approximately high‑teens to around one‑fifth of households.
  • Arizona statewide: typically low‑ to mid‑teens.
  • Implication: Meaningfully higher phone‑centric internet reliance in Cochise.
• Estimated individual smartphone users
  • Population baseline: ~125–130k residents; ~80% adults.
  • Applying adult smartphone adoption in the mid/high‑80s and high teen adoption rates yields a rough estimate of 95k–105k smartphone users countywide.
  • This is an estimate, not a census count; it aligns with ACS household device data and national age‑by‑adoption patterns.

Demographic patterns that influence usage (and differ from the state mix)

• Older age structure than Arizona overall
  • Moderately lowers smartphone penetration and slows migration to 5G‑only devices.
• Income and rurality
  • Lower median income and more dispersed settlement correlate with higher prepaid use and higher smartphone‑only internet reliance than metro AZ.
• Hispanic/Latino households (border county)
  • Strong mobile usage, with a higher share of mobile‑primary internet; bilingual plans and cross‑border considerations are more common than statewide.
• Military/veterans (Fort Huachuca)
  • Drives robust device penetration and on‑base coverage; FirstNet/public‑safety network presence is stronger than typical Arizona counties.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what stands out vs statewide)

• 5G coverage profile
  • Mid‑band 5G is good in and around Sierra Vista, Douglas, Bisbee, Benson/Willcox, and along I‑10/SR‑90, but it thins quickly in ranchland and forested/mountain areas (e.g., Coronado National Forest, Chiricahua/Dragoon ranges). This urban‑rural gap is wider than in Phoenix/Tucson metros.
• Macro towers and terrain
  • Rugged topography produces more pockets of weak signal and line‑of‑sight limits than the state average; in‑building coverage can drop faster outside town cores.
• Backhaul and corridors
  • Fiber backbones and strongest carrier capacity align with I‑10 and key state routes; smaller communities often depend on microwave or limited fiber laterals, constraining peak mobile speeds and capacity compared with metro AZ.
• Public‑safety and federal presence
  • Fort Huachuca and border‑security operations support strong FirstNet/AT&T and generally solid macro coverage near installations—an atypical strength for a rural county.
• Cross‑border environment
  • Proximity to Mexico means more plan management around roaming and network selection than most Arizona counties.

How Cochise differs most from Arizona overall

• Slightly lower household smartphone penetration, but higher dependence on phones as the primary internet connection.
• Larger coverage/performance gaps between towns and outlying areas; slower, patchier mid‑band 5G beyond corridors.
• More prepaid and budget plan usage; slower device replacement cycle driven by age/income mix.
• Stronger public‑safety/FirstNet footprint; network investment concentrates around military and highway corridors.
• Cross‑border usage considerations are more common.

Data notes and confidence

• Primary quantitative reference is ACS S2801 (household device and subscription types). County estimates carry margins of error; use ranges for planning.
• FCC mobile coverage maps show advertised availability; real‑world speeds and reliability in rural terrain are typically lower than statewide metro benchmarks.
• For project‑level decisions, validate with the latest ACS 1‑year/5‑year tables, FCC National Broadband Map tiles, NTIA Indicators of Broadband Need, Arizona state broadband maps, and carrier RF planning where available.

Here’s a concise, locally tuned snapshot of social media use in Cochise County, AZ. Figures are estimates synthesized from county demographics (Census/ACS), national platform adoption (Pew Research, 2023–2024), and rural usage patterns; exact county-level platform data is limited.

Headline user stats

• Population: ~126,000; residents age 13+ ≈ 106,000
• Estimated social media users: 80,000–90,000 (roughly 75–85% of those 13+)
• Gender among users: roughly even overall (≈51% men, 49% women); women over-index on Facebook/Instagram; men over-index on Reddit/X; YouTube and TikTok are near parity

Age breakdown of users (share of all social media users)

• 13–17: ~9%
• 18–24: ~14%
• 25–34: ~16%
• 35–44: ~15%
• 45–54: ~14%
• 55–64: ~14%
• 65+: ~18%

Most-used platforms in Cochise County (approx. adult reach, monthly)

• YouTube: ~75–85%
• Facebook: ~65–70% (heavy use of Groups and Marketplace)
• Instagram: ~35–45%
• TikTok: ~25–35%
• Snapchat: ~20–25% (concentrated under 30)
• WhatsApp: ~15–20% (higher in Douglas/Agua Prieta cross-border families)
• X (Twitter): ~12–18%
• Nextdoor: ~10–15% (Sierra Vista/Bisbee neighborhoods) Note: Platform rank is consistent across the county; Facebook skews 35+, Snapchat/TikTok skew under 35.

Behavioral trends to know

• Local-first engagement: Facebook Groups and Nextdoor drive discussion on road closures, monsoon/wildfire updates, school/district news, yard sales, and buy–sell–trade. Posts with clear neighborhood names and practical info perform best.
• Marketplace culture: Strong weekend morning activity; listings with multiple photos and firm pricing see faster responses.
• Visual short-form growth: Reels/TikTok clips featuring local food, thrift/antique finds (Bisbee), desert hikes (Chiricahua, Ramsey Canyon), off-road spots, and events perform well; Spanglish captions help reach bilingual audiences.
• YouTube is utility-driven: “How-to” repairs (auto, HVAC, ranch/farm), desert gardening, hunting/shooting sports, and hiking trail guides dominate watch time.
• Messaging ecosystems: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp anchor family, church, and league communications; WhatsApp is common for cross-border families and Spanish-speaking households.
• Military footprint effects (Fort Huachuca): Slightly higher usage of YouTube, Discord/gaming communities, LinkedIn; privacy-conscious behavior (less geotagging, preference for closed groups).
• Timing patterns: Engagement peaks 6–8 a.m., noon hour, and 7–9 p.m.; weekend afternoons for community/marketplace posts. Weather and emergency updates spike instantly regardless of time.
• Connectivity realities: Outlying rural areas have spottier bandwidth—shorter videos, captions/subtitles, and lightweight creative perform better.
• Seasonal swings: Winter visitors/snowbirds increase Facebook activity Nov–Mar; event-focused content (festivals, art walks, birding) sees seasonal surges.
• Civic conversations: Border/travel conditions, local elections, public safety, and water issues drive above-average comments and shares; concise, source-linked posts reduce backlash.