Alamosa County

Alamosa County, Colorado — key demographics

Population size

• Total population: 16,376 (2020 Census)
• Latest Census Bureau estimate: ~16.7k (2023)

Age

• Median age: ~31 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18–64: ~64%
• 65 and over: ~13%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity (shares of total population)

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~51%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~41%
• Black, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~2%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3–4%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~6,200
• Average household size: ~2.5–2.6
• Family households: ~58% of households
• Married-couple families: ~38%
• Households with children under 18: ~30%
• Occupied housing tenure: ~57% owner-occupied, ~43% renter-occupied

Notes: Figures are rounded; population count from 2020 Decennial Census, all other measures from the latest available ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023).

Alamosa County, CO email usage (estimates)

Population and density

• Residents: ~17–18k; low density ~20–25 people/sq mi, concentrated in the City of Alamosa (college town; Adams State University).

Email users and penetration

• Estimated email users: ~12–14k (roughly 85–92% of adults, plus many students/teens with school accounts).

Age distribution of email users

• 13–17: ~6–8% (school-driven accounts)
• 18–34: ~28–32% (university and early-career)
• 35–54: ~32–36% (workforce peak)
• 55+: ~26–30% (slightly lower, but rising)

Gender split

• Roughly even, ~49% male / ~51% female, mirroring population.

Digital access trends

• In-town broadband (cable/fiber) supports high daily email use; rural outskirts rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
• Household internet subscription rate likely ~75–85%, with higher smartphone-only access (10–15%) than urban areas.
• Mobile coverage: solid LTE and growing 5G along US‑160/285 and within Alamosa; speeds and reliability drop in outlying agricultural areas.
• Public connectivity via Adams State University, libraries, and civic buildings helps close gaps.

Notes: Figures synthesized from rural Colorado patterns and typical adoption benchmarks; exact values vary by neighborhood and provider availability.

Below is a planning-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Alamosa County, Colorado, with emphasis on how local patterns diverge from statewide norms. Figures are estimates based on Census/ACS population structure, Pew-reported smartphone adoption patterns, and known rural market dynamics in Colorado’s San Luis Valley; ranges are given where county-specific measurements are sparse.

Overview

• Rural, small-population county with a university hub (Adams State) and surrounding agricultural areas. This mix drives very high mobile dependence among students and lower-income households, alongside notable coverage gaps outside the city of Alamosa.

User estimates (orders of magnitude, rounded)

• Population base: ~16–17k residents; ~12–13k adults.
• Adult smartphone users: roughly 9.5k–10.5k (assumes 75–82% adult smartphone adoption locally, lower than Colorado’s urban-skewed average).
• Households: ~6.2k–6.7k.
• “Mobile-only” home internet households (smartphone or hotspot as primary home internet): about 1.2k–1.7k (≈18–25% of households), likely higher than Colorado’s statewide share.
• Prepaid users: meaningfully above state average; common among students, seasonal workers, and cost-sensitive households.
• Teen/young adult use: very high smartphone penetration among 18–24-year-olds due to the university; brings countywide usage closer to state levels in-town despite rural gaps outside town.

Demographic patterns linked to usage

• Age:
  • 18–24: near-saturation smartphone ownership; heavy app, messaging, and hotspot use.
  • 65+: materially lower smartphone adoption than state average; feature phones or limited-data plans remain more common.
• Income and affordability:
  • Lower median household income and higher poverty rates than Colorado overall correlate with:
    • Greater reliance on smartphones as the only internet connection.
    • Higher prepaid and MVNO usage.
    • Sensitivity to plan price increases (exacerbated by the wind-down of the ACP subsidy in 2024).
• Language/household composition:
  • A larger Hispanic/Latino share than the state average implies strong demand for bilingual customer support and heavy use of over-the-top messaging (e.g., WhatsApp), especially where data is cheaper than voice.
• Workforce seasonality:
  • Agriculture and tourism introduce seasonal swings in device counts and traffic loads, unlike more stable urban Front Range patterns.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Radio access:
  • Reliable 4G LTE in and around the city of Alamosa and along US-160/US-285 corridors.
  • 5G low-band is present in town and along main highways; mid-band 5G appears limited to core population centers; mmWave is unlikely.
  • Coverage becomes spotty moving into farmland, foothills, and recreation areas (e.g., toward Great Sand Dunes); in-building penetration drops at the edges of town.
• Backhaul and resilience:
  • Backhaul is concentrated along highway/fiber routes; single-threaded segments mean fiber cuts or power events can have outsized impact compared to metro Colorado.
  • Emergency communications rely on AT&T FirstNet; rural sectors can prioritize public-safety traffic during incidents but may still face capacity constraints.
• Local fixed alternatives that shape mobile behavior:
  • Presence of local fiber and fixed-wireless ISPs (e.g., Jade Communications, Ciello) in parts of the county helps offload mobile traffic in town.
  • Outside served pockets, fixed broadband choices thin out quickly, reinforcing hotspot and smartphone-only patterns.
• Public/anchor connectivity:
  • Campus Wi‑Fi and anchor institutions (schools, libraries, health facilities) act as key offload/coverage relief, a bigger factor here than in most Colorado metros.

How Alamosa differs from statewide trends

• Adoption level: Slightly lower adult smartphone adoption than Colorado overall, but with a strong 18–24 segment that lifts in-town usage.
• Access mode: Higher share of mobile-only households than the state average due to cost and fixed-broadband availability gaps.
• Plan mix: Larger prepaid/MVNO share and tighter data budgets than urban Front Range counties.
• Network experience:
  • More pronounced urban–rural split in signal quality and speeds; good in-town, variable to poor in outlying areas.
  • Greater susceptibility to single backhaul failures and power events.
• Device profile: Skews more budget/Android than statewide mix; device financing and repair costs play a larger role in churn.
• Seasonal demand: Noticeable peaks from university calendar and tourism/ag cycles; less visible in state aggregates.

Implications for planners and providers

• Expand mid-band 5G and sector densification just outside the city to capture commuter, farm, and tourist corridors.
• Pair coverage with affordability: prepaid-friendly plans, bilingual support, and community distribution matter as much as new spectrum.
• Bolster backhaul redundancy along US-160/US-285 to improve resiliency.
• Leverage anchors (university, schools, libraries) for managed Wi‑Fi/offload and digital inclusion programs to reduce mobile-only dependency where possible.

Notes on methodology

• Populations and household counts inferred from recent Census/ACS ranges for Alamosa County; smartphone adoption anchored to rural vs statewide patterns from national surveys (e.g., Pew) and Colorado rural market behavior. For program design or grant applications, pull the latest ACS S2801 (device/subscription), FCC mobile coverage, and Colorado Broadband Office maps to replace the ranges above with current point estimates.

Below is a concise, county-tailored snapshot using the latest Pew Research Center platform-usage rates (2024 adults; 2022–2023 teens) blended with Alamosa County’s small‑college, rural profile. Exact county-level social data aren’t published; figures are modeled estimates and should be read as directional ranges.

Quick snapshot

• Population: ~17,000 residents (small, college-influenced county; Adams State University).
• Estimated adult social-media penetration: ~70–80% of adults use at least one platform (roughly 9,000–10,500 people).
• Teen penetration (13–17): very high; >90% use at least one platform.

Most-used platforms (adults, estimated share of Alamosa adults)

• YouTube: 80–85% (broadest reach across ages)
• Facebook: 65–70% (community groups, local news, buy/sell)
• Instagram: 45–50% (strong with college/young professionals)
• TikTok: 30–35% (fast growth among under-35s; local food/outdoors content)
• Pinterest: 30–35% (projects, home, recipes)
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (likely above national average due to larger Hispanic/Latino community and family ties)
• Also notable: Snapchat 20–25%, X/Twitter 20–23%, Reddit 18–22%, LinkedIn 20–25%, Nextdoor 15–20%

Age-group patterns

• Teens (13–17): YouTube ~90–95%; TikTok ~60–70%; Instagram/Snapchat each ~60–65%; Facebook ~25–35%.
• 18–24 (college-heavy locally): YouTube ~90%+; Instagram ~70–80%; Snapchat ~60–70%; TikTok ~60–65%; Facebook lower but used for campus/events.
• 25–44: Facebook and Instagram lead; TikTok ~35–45% and rising; YouTube near-universal.
• 45–64: Facebook dominant; YouTube high; Instagram modest; some Pinterest/WhatsApp.
• 65+: Facebook primary; YouTube moderate; smaller but growing Instagram; some Nextdoor/community pages.

Gender breakdown (directional, based on national patterns)

• Overall users in Alamosa are roughly 50/50 by gender.
• Women: more prevalent on Facebook, Instagram, and especially Pinterest; slightly higher daily use of Facebook/Instagram Stories/Reels.
• Men: overrepresented on Reddit and X; slightly heavier YouTube usage for news/tech/sports.
• WhatsApp usage appears balanced or female-leaning in family/community contexts.

Behavioral trends to expect locally

• Community-first Facebook: High engagement in local groups (news, school updates, lost-and-found, buy/sell/trade), with posts peaking mornings and evenings.
• Campus effect: Adams State drives Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok activity, especially during semesters; short-form video for events, athletics, and local spots.
• Outdoors/tourism content: Instagram/TikTok posts around Great Sand Dunes and San Luis Valley scenery; weekend spikes and seasonal surges.
• Bilingual engagement: Above-average Spanish-language activity; WhatsApp and Facebook used for family networks, mutual aid, and local business messaging.
• Messaging-commerce: Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram DMs for inquiries and informal transactions with local businesses.
• Local news discovery: Facebook and YouTube are primary; cross-posts from local outlets (e.g., radio/newspaper) get strong reach.
• Time/seasonality: Evening and weekend engagement is strongest; agricultural seasons and university calendar shift posting and response patterns.

Method and caveats

• Sources: Pew Research Center 2024 (US adult platform use) and 2022–2023 teen social media reports; county demographics and rural/small-college context used to weight platforms by age.
• These are modeled estimates (±5–10 percentage points) rather than measured county-specific metrics. For planning, validate with page insights, ad platform reach estimates, and local group analytics.