Archuleta County

Here are key demographics for Archuleta County, Colorado.

Population size

• 2020 Census: 13,359
• 2023 estimate: ~14,600

Age

• Median age: ~50 years
• Under 18: ~19%
• 18–64: ~55%
• 65 and over: ~26%

Sex

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (shares of total population)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~75–77%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~18–20%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–4%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0%

Households

• Number of households: ~5,900–6,100
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~63–66% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–78%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates; 2023 Population Estimates).

Archuleta County, CO (population roughly 13–14k) is rural and low-density (~10 people/sq. mi.), which shapes digital access.

Estimated email users

• 9,000–11,000 regular users. Method: adults are ~80% of residents; 85–95% of U.S. adults use email, with slightly lower rates in the oldest cohorts.

Age distribution (approximate usage rates)

• 18–34: ~95% use email.
• 35–54: ~95%.
• 55–64: ~90%.
• 65+: ~80–85%. Because the county skews older, 55+ make up a larger-than-average share of local email users.

Gender split

• Roughly even (near 50/50 overall), with a slight female majority among older adults.

Digital access and trends

• Pagosa Springs and the US‑160 corridor have the best fixed broadband; outlying areas rely more on fixed wireless or satellite due to terrain and long last‑mile runs.
• Household broadband adoption is likely in the low‑to‑mid 80% range, with a notable smartphone‑only segment (roughly 10–15%) and pockets with limited or no wired options.
• Expansion efforts (state/federal funds and provider builds) are improving fiber and fixed‑wireless coverage, but mountainous geography and sparse settlement continue to constrain speeds and reliability in remote tracts.
• Public Wi‑Fi (libraries, community centers) is an important access point.

Archuleta County, Colorado — mobile phone usage snapshot (with county-vs-state contrasts)

Population context

• Population: roughly 14–15k residents; ~6k households. Older, more rural, and more seasonal than Colorado overall (retiree and tourism-driven economy centered on Pagosa Springs and the US‑160 corridor).

User estimates

• Mobile phone ownership: about 88–92% of residents, or ~12.3k–13.8k mobile users (lower than Colorado’s ~94–96% due to older age structure and rural gaps).
• Smartphone users: about 80–85% of residents, or ~11k–12.5k (below Colorado’s ~88–90%).
• Mobile-only households (no landline): estimated 60–68% of households (vs Colorado ~72–78%). Older residents keep landlines at higher rates; younger/seasonal workers skew mobile-only.
• Home-internet substitution with mobile hotspots: materially higher than state average in outlying areas; common among ranches/short‑term rentals where wired options are limited.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: 65+ share near double the state average. Smartphone adoption among seniors trails state levels, with more basic phones and voice/text-first usage. Telehealth by phone is common but app-based care lags due to device comfort and coverage.
• Income and plans: Median incomes trail the state; prepaid and budget postpaid plans are more common. The lapse of ACP subsidies in 2024 likely pushed some households toward lower-cost, lower‑data plans or hotspot-only setups—impact expected to be larger than statewide.
• Hispanic/Latino residents comprise a higher share than many mountain counties; bilingual messaging and Wi‑Fi calling in mixed-coverage homes are important. A small portion of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation touches the county; Tribal residents may face distinct coverage/permitting constraints.
• Seasonal population: Tourism (summer and ski traffic to Wolf Creek Pass) creates pronounced, time‑bound spikes in mobile demand—more extreme than state averages.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage geography: Service is strongest in and around Pagosa Springs and along highways (US‑160, CO‑84, CO‑151). Mountain terrain and forested valleys create dead zones off-corridor; this terrain penalty is sharper than the statewide norm.
• 5G availability:
  • T‑Mobile: Broad “Extended Range” 5G (600 MHz) along corridors and in town; mid‑band 2.5 GHz capacity is present in town but thins quickly with distance.
  • AT&T: Low‑band 5G and LTE widely along corridors; capacity moderate in town; FirstNet provides public-safety coverage but indoor penetration varies in older buildings.
  • Verizon: Reliable rural LTE and low‑band 5G “Nationwide” in most traveled areas; limited mid‑band 5G capacity; mmWave/Ultra Wideband not a factor. Overall: 5G is coverage‑oriented, not ultra‑capacity; typical real‑world speeds outside town often 5–50 Mbps, versus higher mid‑band averages along the Front Range.
• Towers and siting: A small number of macro sites line US‑160 and key ridges; fill‑in sites are sparse. Topography limits line‑of‑sight, causing more abrupt drop‑offs than in eastern Colorado.
• Backhaul: Fiber follows US‑160 with microwave spurs; single‑route dependencies over mountain passes raise outage risk from fiber cuts, wildfires, or winter storms—resilience challenges are greater than state average.
• Fixed wireless and local ISPs: Regional WISPs use 5 GHz/CBRS to reach ranches and canyons (e.g., SkyWerx and similar providers). Many households blend WISP or satellite with mobile hotspots—this hybrid behavior is more common than statewide.
• Public safety: AT&T FirstNet covers primary corridors; emergency alerts are widely received in town but can miss remote pockets where only one carrier is viable.
• Indoor coverage: Metal-roof homes and log construction reduce indoor signal; Wi‑Fi calling is a critical workaround. This building‑material impact is more pronounced than in urban Front Range housing stock.

How county trends differ from Colorado overall

• Lower smartphone and mobile‑only adoption driven by older demographics; but higher reliance on mobile hotspots for home connectivity outside town.
• Greater variability by micro‑location: strong service near US‑160, sharp fall‑offs a few miles away; Colorado’s urban counties have smoother coverage gradients.
• Capacity vs coverage tradeoff: County 5G is largely low‑band for reach; Colorado’s metros enjoy widespread mid‑band capacity with higher median speeds.
• Higher seasonal congestion: Peak‑season slowdowns and tower saturation are more frequent relative to baseline population than in most Colorado counties.
• Resilience gap: More single‑threaded backhaul and outage exposure from terrain, wildfire, and winter events than the state average.
• Carrier dynamics: Verizon tends to be the default for backcountry reliability; T‑Mobile often leads town‑center speeds where mid‑band exists; AT&T/FirstNet valued by public safety—these role separations are sharper than in metro Colorado.

Data notes and method

• Estimates synthesized from recent census/demographic patterns, rural smartphone adoption research, carrier 5G footprints, and known terrain/backhaul constraints in the San Juan Mountains. Figures are presented as ranges to reflect uncertainty and local variation. For planning, validate at neighborhood scale with drive tests and carrier/WISP serviceability checks.

Here’s a concise, directional snapshot of social media use in Archuleta County, CO. Figures are estimates inferred from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media adoption, adjusted for Archuleta’s older age mix and rural context, plus ACS population patterns. Treat as indicative, not official counts.

User stats

• Population: roughly 14,000 residents; adults (18+) about 11,000.
• Adults using at least one social platform: about 9,000–10,000.
• Teens (13–17) on social: roughly 1,800–2,300.
• Total local social users (teens + adults): on the order of 10,800–12,300.

Age mix of users (estimated share of local users)

• 18–29: 15–18% (smaller than U.S. average)
• 30–49: 28–32%
• 50–64: 24–28%
• 65+: 25–30% (larger than U.S. average)

Gender

• Overall near even (about 50/50). Usage tilts:
  • Slightly more women on Facebook and Pinterest.
  • Slightly more men on YouTube (tech/outdoors) and Reddit/X.

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adult population; multi-platform use is common)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~70–75% (locally very strong for groups, events, Marketplace)
• Instagram: ~35–45% (skews 18–49; reels for outdoor content)
• Pinterest: ~30–40% (home, DIY, recipes; strong among women)
• TikTok: ~20–30% (growing; lower than national due to older base)
• Snapchat: ~15–25% (concentrated among teens/20s)
• LinkedIn: ~20–30% (remote workers/professionals; below big-city levels)
• X (Twitter): ~15–20% (news/sports watchers)
• Reddit: ~15–20% (younger/male/tech-outdoors)
• WhatsApp: ~15–25% (stronger with Hispanic/bilingual families)
• Nextdoor: ~15–25% (homeowners/neighborhood alerts; higher than national in small communities)

Local behavioral trends

• Community-first Facebook: High engagement with local groups (events, wildfire/road updates, lost-and-found, school sports), Marketplace (buy/sell/trade, vehicles, tools, rentals), and local government or public safety posts.
• Outdoor/tourism content engine: Frequent photo and short-form video around trails, hot springs, hunting/fishing, snow conditions; spikes in summer and winter. Instagram Reels and YouTube shorts perform well.
• Practical video on YouTube: DIY, homesteading, equipment repair, real estate tours, county meetings/briefings, and outdoor skill content.
• Neighborhood utility: Nextdoor and Facebook groups used for service recommendations, contractors, outages, HOA notices, and road/closure intel.
• Messaging ecosystems: Facebook Messenger is default; WhatsApp used in multilingual and extended-family networks; Snapchat for teen friend groups.
• Older users = high Facebook stickiness: 50+ cohorts skew to Facebook for family updates, health/community info; more passive consumption, fewer platform switches.
• Younger users = visual/short-form: Teens and 20s split time between Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok; local sports highlights and seasonal jobs posts get traction.
• Small-business playbook: Consistent posting on Facebook/Instagram, boosted posts within 25–50 miles, UGC re-shares, event promos, hours/closures during storms; Pinterest useful for lodging, decor, and remodeling inspo.
• Trust cues: Local faces, recognizable places, and practical utility outperform polished “ad” creative; comments and shares drive reach more than raw follower counts.
• Timing and seasonality: Evening posting (6–10 pm) performs best; content volume and engagement lift during summer tourist season and winter snow periods; wildfire or road events cause sudden spikes.

Notes on method and sources

• Platform percentages are based on Pew Research Center’s Social Media Use in 2024 (national adult adoption), adjusted downward or upward for Archuleta’s older age structure and rural profile. Population/age structure based on recent ACS patterns for Archuleta County. For precise planning, validate with page insights, ad platform reach estimates, and local org analytics.