Gila County

Gila County, Arizona — key demographics (most recent Census/ACS)

• Population: 53,272 (2020 Census); about 53,000 in ACS 2018–2022
• Age:
  • Median age: ~50 years
  • Under 18: ~19%
  • 18–64: ~55%
  • 65+: ~26%
• Sex: ~50–51% female; ~49–50% male
• Race (race alone):
  • White: ~77%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~15%
  • Two or more races: ~5–6%
  • Black: ~1–2%
  • Asian: ~1%
• Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~19–20%
• Households:
  • Number of households: ~23,000
  • Average household size: ~2.2–2.3
  • Family households: ~60% of households

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Gila County, AZ — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Estimated email users: 33,000–37,000 residents (about 62–70% of the population). Basis: county population ~53k; adult share high; 80–85% internet adoption; 90%+ of internet users use email.
• Age mix among email users:
  • 13–24: ~12–15%
  • 25–44: ~25–30%
  • 45–64: ~30–35%
  • 65+: ~25–30% (retiree-heavy county keeps email adoption relatively strong among seniors)
• Gender split: roughly even (about 49% male, 51% female among users), tracking overall population.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription roughly mid-to-upper 70s percent (lower than AZ statewide due to rurality).
  • Smartphone-only internet users likely 18–25% of households; higher in lower-income and remote areas.
  • Libraries, schools, and community centers (Payson, Globe–Miami, San Carlos) remain important access points.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Sparse: ~11 people per square mile across ~4,800 sq mi; mountainous terrain (Mogollon Rim, Tonto National Forest) creates service gaps.
  • Best fixed broadband/cable along US-60 and SR-87 corridors and in towns; fiber and fixed wireless thin in outlying and tribal areas.
  • Ongoing state/federal funding aims to expand last‑mile fiber and fixed wireless to unserved pockets.

Figures are synthesized from ACS-style internet adoption patterns and FCC rural connectivity trends.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Gila County, Arizona (focus on how it differs from statewide patterns)

How many mobile users (estimates, 2024)

• Population context: ~54,000 residents; older age profile and lower median income than the Arizona average.
• People with a mobile phone (any type): approximately 42,000–46,000 residents. Method: apply high adult ownership (about 88–92% of adults) plus partial adoption among teens, adjusted downward for the county’s older age and rural profile relative to Arizona.
• Smartphone users: roughly 36,000–41,000. Share of phone owners using a smartphone is likely a few points lower than the state (about mid/upper-80s% in Gila versus low-90s% statewide).
• Basic/feature phone users: about 4,000–6,000, concentrated among older adults and residents in areas with weak data coverage.
• Mobile-only internet households: estimated 15–22% of households rely on a cellphone data plan as their primary home internet, above Arizona’s average (commonly low to mid-teens). This reflects sparser wireline options outside of Globe–Miami and Payson.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age:
  • Gila has a notably higher share of residents 65+. Smartphone adoption among seniors lags the state (roughly mid-60s to mid-70s percent in Gila vs. higher statewide), with more basic-phone use and longer device replacement cycles.
• Income and plan type:
  • Lower median household income correlates with higher prepaid usage and tighter data caps. Expect prepaid to account for a larger share of active lines than the Arizona average (by roughly 5–10 percentage points).
  • Price sensitivity increases “mobile-only” reliance and discourages frequent device upgrades.
• Race/ethnicity and geography:
  • American Indian/Alaska Native residents and households in and near tribal lands face more limited fixed broadband choices; mobile devices are more often the primary connection. Coverage gaps and affordability remain central barriers.
• Work and mobility:
  • More retirees and service-sector workers relative to the state mean fewer employer-paid plans and slightly lower eSIM/dual-line adoption.
  • Seasonal residents in Rim Country can drive short-term churn or line suspensions and selective carrier switching for coverage.

Digital infrastructure characteristics

• Coverage pattern:
  • Strongest LTE/5G service clusters in Globe–Miami and Payson; coverage follows major corridors (US‑60, SR‑87, SR‑188, SR‑260). Mountainous terrain and the Tonto National Forest create persistent dead zones away from highways and towns.
  • 5G: low-band 5G from national carriers reaches the main towns; mid-band 5G capacity is mostly town-centered; mmWave is unlikely outside a few dense spots.
• Carriers:
  • Verizon and AT&T generally offer broader rural LTE footprints; T‑Mobile’s low-band 5G fills in many populated areas but remains patchier off-corridor. Real-world performance varies by canyon/ridge shadowing.
  • AT&T’s FirstNet provides public-safety prioritization; coverage emphasizes highways and community hubs.
• Backhaul and resilience:
  • Many sites use microwave backhaul; fiber is concentrated along primary routes. Wildfire, monsoon storms, and power outages can disrupt service beyond the immediate fire/flood zones due to limited route diversity.
• Home internet alternatives:
  • Cable and fiber are mainly limited to core town areas; DSL and fixed wireless serve many outlying communities. 5G fixed wireless access is available in and near the main towns but not countywide.
• Tribal and grant activity:
  • Tribal lands in and near Gila have pursued federal broadband programs (for middle‑mile, last‑mile, and device subsidies). State BEAD investments are expected to target unserved/underserved pockets in the county where wireline buildout has lagged.

How Gila County differs from statewide trends

• Adoption and devices:
  • Slightly lower smartphone penetration and a higher share of basic phones, driven by the county’s older age structure and rural coverage gaps.
  • Longer device upgrade cycles; accessory adoption (wearables, tablets with data plans) is lower than statewide.
• Plans and affordability:
  • Higher reliance on prepaid and starter-tier plans; more households depending solely on mobile data for home internet.
• Network experience:
  • Wider variance in signal quality and speeds, with more dead zones off main corridors; 5G capacity benefits are more localized than in metro Arizona.
  • Voice/SMS remain comparatively important due to reliability in fringe areas; Wi‑Fi calling is a common workaround in weak-signal homes.
• Seasonal/operational factors:
  • Seasonal population swings and wildfire-related disruptions have a more visible impact on usage patterns and network performance than in Arizona’s urban counties.

Notes on methodology and sources to consult for validation

• Estimates are derived from: U.S. Census/ACS S2801 (computer/smartphone and internet subscription at the county level), FCC coverage and broadband maps, NTIA program materials, public carrier coverage maps, and Pew Research mobile adoption figures, adjusted for Gila’s age, income, and rural profile.
• For precise, current figures, check the latest ACS S2801 county table for Gila, FCC Mobile LTE/5G maps, and carrier coverage tools around Globe–Miami, Payson, Tonto Basin, Pine–Strawberry, and the San Carlos Apache Reservation.

Below is a concise, best-available picture of social media use in Gila County, AZ. Because platforms rarely publish county‑level stats, the percentages are modeled by weighting Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adoption rates by Gila County’s older-than-average age profile from the U.S. Census. Treat them as estimates, not exact counts.

User snapshot

• Adults using at least one social platform: roughly 65–75% of adults, or about 30–35k people in Gila County.
• Device mix: predominantly mobile/smartphone; many users rely on cellular data in more rural areas.
• Posting vs. browsing: skewed toward consumption (watching, scrolling) over frequent posting, especially among 50+.

Most‑used platforms (estimated share of Gila County adults)

• YouTube: 70–78%
• Facebook: 62–70%
• Instagram: 28–38%
• Pinterest: 25–35% (notably higher among women)
• TikTok: 18–26%
• Snapchat: 12–20%
• WhatsApp: 12–20%
• X (Twitter): 15–22%
• Reddit: 10–16% (male‑skewed)
• Nextdoor: 12–18% (strongest in town centers like Payson/Globe)
• LinkedIn: 12–18%

Age patterns (directionally)

• 18–29: ~90–95% on social; heaviest on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook used mainly for events/groups.
• 30–49: ~85–90%; Facebook + YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing.
• 50–64: ~75–85%; Facebook is the hub; YouTube high; Pinterest popular; moderate Instagram.
• 65+: ~60–70%; Facebook and YouTube lead; lower Instagram/TikTok; some Nextdoor usage in town neighborhoods.

Gender patterns (directionally)

• Women: higher Facebook and Pinterest use; similar or slightly higher Instagram; lower Reddit/X.
• Men: higher YouTube, Reddit, X; Facebook broadly similar; slight edge on LinkedIn among working‑age men.

Behavioral trends to know

• Local-first use: Facebook Groups/Pages for town news, school updates, wildfire/road conditions, missing pets, and community resources. Nextdoor used for hyperlocal notices in denser neighborhoods.
• Marketplace culture: Heavy use of Facebook Marketplace for buy/sell, yard sales, ranch/outdoor gear.
• Events and civic info: Facebook events for fairs, rodeos, fundraisers; YouTube for recordings of local meetings or church services.
• Outdoors and DIY: Strong appetite for YouTube how‑to content (home, auto, ranch, off‑road, fishing/hunting). Facebook groups for trail, fire, and weather updates.
• Messaging over posting: Facebook Messenger (and some WhatsApp) for family/community coordination; many “lurkers” who read more than they post.
• Short‑form video: Reels/TikTok consumption rising across ages, but creation skews younger; cross-posting is common.
• Timing: Evenings and weekends see the most engagement; spikes during wildfire season and major weather events.
• Safety/Scams: Older users increasingly active but cautious; clear calls to action and local credibility matter.

Sources and method

• Pew Research Center, “Social Media Use in 2024” (national adoption by platform, age, gender).
• U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts/ACS for Gila County (older age profile; rural context).
• Estimates above apply Pew’s platform-by-demographic adoption to Gila County’s age mix; exact county-level platform data are not published.