Glenn County

Which source/timeframe should I use for the figures?

• Latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023) – most detailed for small counties
• 2020 Decennial Census – point-in-time headcount with limited topics

If no preference, I’ll use ACS 2019–2023 and report: total population, median age, sex split, race/ethnicity (Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, etc.), number of households, average household size, family vs. nonfamily households, and households with children.

Glenn County snapshot (estimates)

• Population: 29,000 across ~1,300 sq mi (22 people/sq mi). Main towns: Orland and Willows. Connectivity is strongest along the I‑5 corridor; rural areas see patchier wired options and more reliance on fixed‑wireless/mobile.

Email users

• Total users: ~20,000–22,000 residents use email at least occasionally (based on adult/teen population and ~85–95% email adoption among connected users).
• Gender split: roughly even (≈50% female, 50% male).

Age distribution of users (approx.)

• 13–17: 1.4k–1.8k (high school–age adoption high but not universal).
• 18–34: 6k–7k.
• 35–54: 6.5k–7.5k.
• 55–64: 3k–3.5k.
• 65+: 3k–3.5k (slightly lower adoption than younger adults).

Digital access trends

• Home internet subscription is below the California average; expect ~75–85% of households subscribed, with 10–15% smartphone‑only access.
• Public Wi‑Fi and devices at county libraries and schools are meaningful access points.
• Mobile carriers provide solid coverage near towns/arterials; speeds and reliability drop in dispersed agricultural areas, affecting frequent email use.
• Overall email engagement is high among working‑age adults; seniors participate but at lower daily frequency.

Notes: Figures are synthesized from Census/ACS rural access patterns and national email adoption benchmarks.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Glenn County, California (how it differs from statewide patterns)

County snapshot

• Population: ≈29,000 residents; adults 18+ ≈21,000–23,000.
• Settlement pattern: small towns (Orland, Willows) along I‑5; sparsely populated foothills/western ranges.

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: ≈18,000–20,000 (about 83–87% of adults, lower than California’s ~90%).
• Teen smartphone users (12–17): ≈2,200–2,600; overall county smartphone users ≈20,000–22,000.
• Feature/basic phone users: ≈700–1,100 adults (3–5%).
• Mobile-only home internet: ≈1,700–2,300 households (roughly 18–25% of households), higher than the state average (~12–15%), reflecting gaps in wired broadband and cost sensitivity.
• Prepaid share: estimated 50–60% of lines (vs. ~35–40% statewide), with strong use of Cricket, Metro, and multi-carrier MVNOs via Walmart and independent dealers.
• Device mix: iPhone share likely 40–50% (lower than California’s ~60–65%); budget Android devices more prevalent.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Ethnicity/language: A higher share of Hispanic/Latino residents than the state average. Spanish-first households are common, contributing to heavy use of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and TikTok for communication and commerce.
• Age: A bimodal pattern—larger-than-average groups of older adults (who show lower smartphone and mobile banking adoption) and younger family households (heavy video and messaging use).
• Seasonal workforce: Agriculture drives seasonal inflows; networks see localized traffic spikes during planting/harvest, particularly around orchards and along I‑5 service corridors.
• Income/affordability: Lower median income than the state increases reliance on prepaid plans, ACP/Lifeline alternatives (where available), hotspotting, and shared family plans.

Digital infrastructure (what’s on the ground)

• Coverage profile:
  • Strongest along I‑5 and in Orland/Willows; weaker or no signal in western foothills (Elk Creek/Stonyford) due to terrain and sparse population.
  • Verizon generally leads for rural coverage; AT&T is solid in towns and farm corridors; T‑Mobile coverage has broadened with 600 MHz but can be uneven off-corridor.
• 5G specifics:
  • Low-band 5G is common on main corridors; mid-band 5G (C‑band/n41) is concentrated along I‑5 and population centers. Estimated 55–75% of residents have access to mid-band 5G, versus >90% in much of urban California.
  • mmWave is negligible.
• Site density and resiliency:
  • Rough estimate: 35–55 macro cell sites countywide (≈2.6–4.1 sites per 100 sq mi); very few small cells outside downtown blocks.
  • Backup power varies; PSPS/wildfire events can create multi-hour outages at sites without extended battery or generator support—impact is higher than statewide urban averages.
• Backhaul:
  • Fiber follows I‑5 and state highways; many outlying sites use microwave backhaul.
  • State middle‑mile fiber investments across the North State are expanding backbone options along highway corridors; as they light up, they should improve capacity and enable more fixed wireless/5G upgrades in towns off the interstate.
• Alternatives:
  • Fixed wireless (e.g., regional WISPs) and satellite fill coverage gaps; they also influence high rates of mobile-only households that tether phones.

How Glenn County differs from California overall

• Lower smartphone penetration (by a few points) and lower iPhone share; higher reliance on budget Android.
• Higher prepaid adoption and price sensitivity; more multi-line family and MVNO plans.
• More households depend on mobile as primary internet due to limited wired options outside town centers.
• 5G mid-band availability is patchy away from I‑5, leading to rural LTE/low-band dependence and variable speeds—unlike metro California where mid-band is widespread.
• Coverage gaps persist in western terrain; outages during PSPS/wildfire events have larger relative impact than in urban areas.
• Greater influence of agricultural seasonality on traffic loads and device activations.
• Higher use of Spanish-language apps/channels (WhatsApp, Facebook) for communication and commerce.

Implications and opportunities

• Network build priorities: add mid-band 5G sectors and fiber backhaul in Orland/Willows and along farm corridors; extend coverage toward foothill communities with low-band fill-ins and microwave rings.
• Retail/offers: emphasize affordable prepaid, Spanish-language support, large hotspot data, and family bundles; position fixed-wireless 5G where cable/FTTH is absent.
• Public safety: expand backup power at macro sites; improve emergency roaming and deployables for harvest/wildfire seasons; promote WEA/alerts in Spanish.

Notes on method

• Figures are modeled from county population and age structure, rural adoption patterns from national/state surveys (e.g., Pew, ACS), carrier coverage disclosures, and typical rural California market behavior as of 2023–2024. Ranges are provided where precise local counts are not published.

Social media in Glenn County, CA — short snapshot (estimates)

User stats

• Population: ≈29–30k; residents 13+ ≈24–25k
• Internet access: 80–85% of households have home broadband; smartphone adoption ≈83–87% of adults
• Social media penetration (13+): 78–85% use at least one platform monthly ≈19–21k people

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+, monthly; overlaps by design)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 60–70% (strongest single local network)
• Facebook Messenger: 45–50%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 30–40%
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (higher among Spanish-speaking/Hispanic residents)
• Snapchat: 20–30% overall; 60–70% of teens/young adults
• Pinterest: 20–25% (women ≈30–35%)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 3–7% (Facebook Groups fill most “neighbor” use cases)

Age-group patterns (monthly use highlights)

• Teens (13–17): YouTube ≈95%; TikTok 70–75%; Snapchat ≈70%; Instagram ≈65%; Facebook ≈25–30%
• 18–29: YouTube ≈95%; Instagram ≈70%; TikTok ≈60%; Snapchat ≈55%; Facebook ≈55%
• 30–49: YouTube ≈85%; Facebook ≈75%; Instagram ≈45%; TikTok ≈30%; WhatsApp/Pinterest ≈30%
• 50–64: Facebook ≈70%; YouTube ≈70%; Instagram ≈25%; TikTok ≈15–20%; WhatsApp ≈20%
• 65+: Facebook ≈60%; YouTube ≈60%; Instagram ≈15%; others low

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Overall social users ≈51% female / 49% male (close to county split)
• Skews: Pinterest (mostly female), Instagram (slight female tilt), TikTok (near parity), Facebook (parity with older-female tilt), Reddit and X (male-skewed)

Behavioral trends

• Local info and commerce: Facebook Groups and Marketplace dominate for yard sales, jobs, school sports, road closures, wildfire updates, and events
• Bilingual engagement: Large Hispanic/Latino share (≈40–50%) drives strong Facebook and WhatsApp use; Spanish content meaningfully boosts reach
• Video-first consumption: Heavy YouTube and growing Reels/Shorts; more watching than posting
• Messaging over public posts: Coordinating via Messenger, WhatsApp, Snapchat/Instagram DMs (work crews, church groups, sports teams)
• Time-of-day and seasonality: Peaks early morning, lunch, and evenings; noticeable spikes during harvest season, high school sports, severe weather/wildfire incidents
• Advertising norms: “Boosted” Facebook posts with simple creative and community tie-ins perform well; giveaways and local faces drive engagement
• Trust patterns: Local pages, schools, churches, and known admins carry more weight than official websites; misinformation can spread quickly without moderator presence

Notes

• Figures are estimates extrapolated from Pew Research social media usage, American Community Survey age/sex mix for Glenn County, and rural California broadband adoption. For campaign planning, validate with platform ad-planner audiences and short local surveys.