Alpine County

Alpine County, California — key demographics

• Population size: 1,204 (2020 Census)

• Age (ACS 2018–2022):

  • Median age: ~50 years
  • Under 18: ~16%
  • 18–64: ~66%
  • 65 and over: ~18%

• Sex (ACS 2018–2022):

  • Male: ~56%
  • Female: ~44%

• Race/ethnicity (2020 Census; Hispanic can be any race):

  • White alone: ~67–70%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~18–20%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~12–15%
  • Two or more races: ~4–6%
  • Asian: ~1%
  • Black or African American: ~1%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: <1%

• Households (ACS 2018–2022):

  • Total households: ~530
  • Average household size: ~2.1
  • Family households: ~55–60% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~40–45% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~20%

Note: Alpine County’s very small population means ACS figures have large margins of error; ranges above reflect that. For decisions, use the latest ACS 5-year tables and 2020 Census counts.

Alpine County, CA snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: ~1,100–1,250 people across ~740 sq mi (≈1.5–1.7 residents/sq mi). Small towns include Markleeville, Woodfords, Bear Valley, and parts of Kirkwood; mountainous terrain and seasonal pass closures affect connectivity.

• Estimated email users: ~800–1,000 regular users. Assumes high U.S. adult email adoption (≈85–95%) and Alpine’s older-skewed population.

• Age distribution and usage:

  • 13–17: ~6–8% of residents; email adoption ~60–75%.
  • 18–34: ~15–20%; adoption ~90–95%.
  • 35–64: ~45–50%; adoption ~90–95%.
  • 65+: ~25–30%; adoption ~75–85%. Net effect: Most email users are 35–64, with strong participation among seniors but somewhat lower than younger adults.

• Gender split among users: Roughly mirrors population (about half male/half female; small-male-leaning possible). No meaningful gender gap in email use expected.

• Digital access trends:

  • Household internet subscription roughly ~70–80% (rural ACS-like levels); many rely on DSL, cable in resort areas, some fixed wireless; limited fiber.
  • Smartphone-only access ~15–25%.
  • Broadband performance varies; better along SR-88/SR-4 corridors and town centers; patchy mobile coverage in canyons/forested areas; satellite common for remote homes.
  • Significant share of seasonal/second homes can depress subscription rates.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Alpine County, California

Context

• Alpine County is California’s least-populous county (~1.2k residents) and among its most mountainous and sparsely settled. Terrain, low density, and seasonal tourism drive very different mobile patterns than the state overall.

Estimated users and demand

• Resident mobile users: 800–950 unique subscribers (estimate). Method: adults ≈ 1,000; assumed mobile adoption 80–90% in a rural/older population, plus a portion of teens.
• Active devices on networks: 1,100–1,500 on typical days (multiple SIMs, work + personal) with large seasonal spikes at recreation areas (e.g., ski and backcountry access points) that can push active devices to several times the resident base on peak weekends.
• Usage mix: heavier reliance on voice/SMS, Wi‑Fi calling at home, offline maps/messaging for backcountry, and fixed broadband or public Wi‑Fi for data-heavy tasks. Streaming and cloud services are often deferred to Wi‑Fi due to coverage and capacity limits.

Demographic factors shaping mobile use

• Older age profile than California overall: below-average smartphone adoption among seniors; more basic-phone and voice-first usage; stronger need for reliable 911/WEA in limited-signal areas.
• Small student population and many outdoor/recreation workers: above-average use of navigation, safety beacons, and offline-capable apps; device battery/coverage management is a routine behavior.
• Tribal and rural low-income households present: affordability and coverage constraints historically depress adoption; with federal subsidies reduced, cost sensitivity for mobile data plans has increased.
• High share of seasonal homes and tourism: transitory users intensify weekend/holiday cell-site loading, especially near highway corridors and resorts, creating large demand volatility absent in most California counties.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro coverage is corridor-centric: service clusters along SR‑88/89 and near populated places (e.g., Markleeville, Woodfords, Bear Valley/Kirkwood area). Steep canyons and tree cover create frequent dead zones just a few miles off-corridor.
• Carriers: Verizon typically offers the broadest rural LTE footprint; AT&T has spotty but improving coverage tied to public-safety/FirstNet buildouts; T‑Mobile presence is limited and mainly along primary roads. In-building coverage away from corridors is often weak.
• 5G footprint: limited and mostly low-band along highways or resort nodes; mid-band capacity sites are sparse; no mmWave. Most users operate on LTE or drop to 3G/No Service in backcountry.
• Backhaul: a mix of microwave and limited fiber spurs from adjacent counties; few tower locations, long spans between sites, and weather exposure make capacity and resiliency more constrained than state norms.
• Wireline interplay: very limited cable plant; pockets of legacy DSL, some fixed wireless, and growing but still sparse fiber to public facilities or businesses. Many residents lean on home Wi‑Fi calling to compensate for weak indoor mobile coverage.
• Cross-border dependence: proximity to Nevada’s Carson Valley means some residents regularly connect to out-of-county or out-of-state towers when traveling for services, creating atypical roaming patterns for a California county.
• Public safety and surge capacity: wildfire and storm events periodically require temporary assets (COWs/COLTs) to restore coverage; alerts can be inconsistent in no-signal pockets.

How Alpine County differs from California overall

• Coverage distribution: far more “edge of network” living—signal is dictated by topography and highway proximity, unlike the broader continuous coverage in most California metros.
• Adoption profile: likely lower smartphone and mobile-broadband adoption among seniors; higher reliance on voice, SMS, and Wi‑Fi calling; more use of satellite messengers or PLBs among outdoor users.
• Capacity and speeds: fewer sites per square mile, more microwave backhaul, and limited mid-band 5G translate to lower median speeds and greater congestion during seasonal peaks.
• Volatility of demand: extreme weekday–weekend/seasonal swings from tourism stress cell sectors in ways not typical of stable urban counties.
• Infrastructure economics: very high cost per user for new towers or fiber backhaul slows investment; grant-dependent buildouts are more common than market-driven expansions.
• Cross-jurisdiction usage: residents and visitors frequently move across county and state lines for work and services, producing roaming patterns and network selections unlike most California counties.

Practical implications for users and planners

• Expect to combine carriers, Wi‑Fi calling, and offline apps for reliability.
• Targeted new macro/micro sites along SR‑88/89 and around recreation hubs yield outsized benefits.
• Backhaul upgrades (fiber where feasible, high-capacity microwave where not) and resilient power are as critical as radios.
• Public-safety coverage auditing and deployable plans should assume no-signal pockets and heavy seasonal surges.

Alpine County, CA — Social Media Snapshot (2025, estimates)

Headline user stats

• Population: ~1,200 residents; ~1,050 are age 13+
• Estimated social media users: 750–900 (about 70–85% of residents 13+), mostly mobile-first; broadband can be spotty

Age mix of users (share of users)

• 13–24: 12–18%
• 25–34: 12–18%
• 35–49: 28–35%
• 50–64: 18–25%
• 65+: 18–25%

Gender breakdown among users

• Female: 50–55%
• Male: 45–50%
• Nonbinary/other: <2% (not systematically measured locally)

Most-used platforms (percent of residents 13+ using at least monthly)

• YouTube: 60–70%
• Facebook: 55–65%
• Instagram: 25–35%
• TikTok: 18–25%
• Pinterest: 18–25% (skews female)
• WhatsApp: 12–18%
• Snapchat: 12–18% (skews under 30)
• X (Twitter): 8–12%
• Reddit: 8–12% (skews male/under 35)
• LinkedIn: 10–15%
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (where neighborhoods exist, e.g., Markleeville, Bear Valley, Kirkwood)

Behavioral trends

• Hyperlocal information is king: wildfire/smoke, storm and road closures (CA‑4 Ebbetts Pass, CA‑88 Carson Pass), power/internet outages, and weather updates.
• Facebook Groups dominate: county and sheriff updates, buy/sell/trade, lost-and-found, HOA/community boards; many private/closed groups due to small‑town privacy norms.
• Consumption > creation: higher “lurker” rates; older adults share links/alerts more than create original content. YouTube used heavily for how‑to, weather, and trail/road reports.
• Tourism seasonality: spikes during ski and hiking seasons; visitors and seasonal workers drive Instagram/TikTok content; locals monitor for conditions and business updates.
• Messaging reliance: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp for family/neighbors and mutual aid during outages; SMS as backup.
• Cross‑county spillover: residents follow groups/pages in adjacent counties and western Nevada for services, jobs, and events.
• Best posting windows: evenings and weekends; sharp real‑time spikes during storms, fires, and closures.

Notes on method and confidence

• Exact county‑level social media measurements aren’t published. Figures are directional estimates anchored to Pew Research Center’s 2024 US platform adoption, adjusted for Alpine County’s small, older, rural population profile. Treat percentages as ranges with high margin of error.