Baca County

Here are the headline demographics for Baca County, Colorado. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census for total population; 2018–2022 ACS 5‑year for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and households). Values are rounded.

• Population: 3,506 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: about 46–47 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18–64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity

• White, non-Hispanic: ~78–82%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~18–22%
• Other groups (each roughly ≤1–2%): Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Two or more races

Households

• Number of households: ~1,550–1,600
• Average household size: ~2.2 people
• Family households: ~60% of households
• Living alone: ~30% of households

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

Estimated scope (Baca County, CO)

• Population 3,500; very low density (1.4 people/sq. mi. across ~2,550 sq. mi.). Adults ~2,600–2,800.
• Email users: ~2,200–2,400 adults (about 80–88%), based on rural U.S. adoption patterns.
• Gender split among users: roughly even (about 50/50).
• Age distribution of use (county skews older; ≈25–30% age 65+):
  • 18–34: 90–95% use email.
  • 35–64: 85–90%.
  • 65+: 70–80% (lower due to access and device gaps, but still common).

Digital access and connectivity

• Fixed broadband is concentrated in towns (e.g., Springfield, Walsh); many outlying ranching areas remain un/underserved, making email access more dependent on mobile data or satellite.
• Home broadband adoption lags state averages typical of rural Colorado; smartphone-only internet reliance is comparatively high.
• Speeds and reliability vary markedly by distance from town centers; long last-mile runs and sparse settlement raise deployment costs.
• Ongoing state/federal programs (e.g., BEAD and cooperative builds) are targeting southeast Colorado, so coverage and adoption are trending upward.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from ACS/Pew rural adoption norms applied to Baca County’s small, older-skewing population and very low population density.

Summary: Baca County’s mobile phone adoption is solid but trails Colorado’s urbanized average, with more feature‑phone retention among seniors, more smartphone‑only internet reliance due to sparse wired broadband, and wider coverage gaps that steer users toward carriers with stronger rural footprints.

County snapshot (context for estimates)

• Population: roughly 3,500–3,800 residents; very low density; older than the Colorado average.
• Economy: agriculture/ranching heavy; lower median household income than state average.
• Implication: older age structure and sparser infrastructure tend to depress smartphone adoption and 5G use relative to Colorado overall.

User estimates (clearly marked as estimates; see methods below)

• Total mobile phone users (any phone type): about 2,700–3,000 residents.
• Smartphone users: about 2,200–2,400.
• Feature‑phone users: roughly 300–450, concentrated among adults 65+.
• Smartphone‑only internet households: likely 15–25% (vs Colorado ~11–13%), reflecting fewer wired options and cost sensitivity.

How these estimates were derived (at a glance)

• Start with population 3,600. Adults ≈ 79% (2,840). Age mix approximated for Baca’s older profile: 18–29 (12%), 30–49 (20%), 50–64 (18%), 65+ (29%).
• Apply Pew Research 2023 ownership rates by age (smartphone: 18–29=96%, 30–49=97%, 50–64=83%, 65+=61; any mobile phone: ~100/99/97/92 respectively).
• Add a small 13–17 contribution for “any phone” to reach ~2,700–3,000 total users.
• Result: smartphone users ~2.2–2.4k; total mobile users ~2.7–3.0k. These are directional and should be validated with current ACS 5‑year tables and local surveys.

Demographic breakdown (patterns that differ from state level)

• Age
  • 65+: Larger share than Colorado average, with lower smartphone adoption (around 60% vs ~76% statewide), and higher feature‑phone retention; heavier reliance on voice/SMS and basic apps.
  • 50–64: High mobile adoption but slightly lower smartphone share than state; slower upgrade cycles.
  • Under 50: Near‑universal mobile and smartphone adoption, comparable to state, but usage more constrained by coverage/speeds when outside towns.
• Income
  • Lower‑income households more likely to be smartphone‑only for home internet and to use prepaid plans or shared data plans; price sensitivity to data caps is higher than in metro Colorado.
• Race/ethnicity
  • County is predominantly non‑Hispanic White with a meaningful Hispanic minority; bilingual/multigenerational family plans and WhatsApp use are common where Spanish is spoken. Overall adoption patterns still driven more by age/income than ethnicity.

Digital infrastructure points (what’s on the ground)

• Coverage and technology
  • 4G LTE: Generally available along US‑287, US‑160, and in/around Springfield, Walsh, Campo, Vilas, Pritchett; drops off between towns due to very low tower density.
  • 5G: Primarily low‑band (especially T‑Mobile) along major corridors and town centers; mid‑band 5G (C‑band/n77) deployments are sparse to none in most of the county. mmWave is effectively absent.
• Carriers
  • Verizon and AT&T tend to offer the most dependable rural LTE coverage; T‑Mobile has improved low‑band 5G reach but still has pockets with weaker signal indoors away from highways.
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence is improving for public safety, but not yet as dense as Front Range markets.
• Capacity and speeds (typical, not guaranteed)
  • LTE: often 5–40 Mbps down in towns/corridors; can drop to single‑digits between sites.
  • Low‑band 5G: often 10–100 Mbps, highly variable by distance/backhaul.
  • Congestion can occur at peak times due to limited backhaul and few sectors per site.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Limited fiber laterals outside town centers; microwave backhaul still common for some sites. Local/regional fiber providers exist but with patchy reach; this constrains 5G mid‑band upgrades and peak capacity.
• Devices and workarounds
  • Higher use of signal boosters, external antennas, Wi‑Fi calling at home, and multi‑carrier setups for ranch/farm operations. Roaming to OK/KS towers occurs near borders.

How Baca County differs from Colorado overall

• Adoption
  • Lower smartphone penetration overall due to older age mix; higher feature‑phone share among seniors.
  • Higher share of smartphone‑only internet households because wired broadband options are fewer and pricier per Mbps.
• Network experience
  • Fewer sites per square mile; more dead zones between towns; more reliance on low‑band spectrum; less mid‑band 5G than Front Range/Western Slope ski corridors.
  • Lower median cellular speeds and bigger swings in performance by location/time of day.
• Market dynamics
  • Coverage reliability matters more than raw speed; Verizon/AT&T often preferred outside towns; T‑Mobile’s value improves near corridors but is less consistent off‑highway.
  • Longer device refresh cycles; prepaid and budget plans more common; careful data management due to caps/metered plans.

What would improve confidence

• Pull latest ACS 5‑year S2801 (computer/smartphone and internet subscription by county), FCC National Broadband Map for cellular/broadband availability, NTIA Indicators of Broadband Need, and carrier 5G mid‑band build maps. A short local survey (20–50 respondents across age/income) would refine the smartphone vs feature‑phone split and carrier share by town/ranch areas.

Sources and method notes

• Pew Research Center Mobile Fact Sheet (2023) for age‑by‑adoption rates.
• U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5‑year estimates for county population/age/poverty; S2801 for device and subscription indicators.
• FCC National Broadband Map and carrier coverage maps (Verizon, AT&T, T‑Mobile) for technology layers; NTIA Indicators of Broadband Need for infrastructure gaps.

Below is a concise, data-informed snapshot for Baca County, CO. Exact, county-level social media surveys don’t exist publicly; figures are estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. and rural breakouts, applied to Baca’s small, older-leaning population profile from the U.S. Census/ACS. Treat percentages as ranges.

County snapshot

• Population ~3,500; adults (18+) ~2,700–2,900. Older-leaning age structure versus U.S. average.

Most‑used platforms (adults; estimated share)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 65–75%
• Instagram: 25–35%
• Pinterest: 25–35% overall; much higher among women
• TikTok: 20–30%
• Snapchat: 20–30%
• LinkedIn: 10–15%
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• WhatsApp: 10–15%
• Reddit: 10–15%
• Nextdoor: 0–5% (coverage/utility limited in very small towns)

Age patterns (directionally)

• Teens (13–17): Very high YouTube; heavy Snapchat and TikTok; Instagram common; Facebook low.
• 18–29: YouTube very high; Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat strong; Facebook moderate.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominant; Instagram moderate; TikTok/Snapchat lower.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube primary; others niche.
• 65+: Facebook first, YouTube second; minimal on others.

Gender breakdown

• Overall usage rates are similar by gender.
• Platform skews:
  • Pinterest: majority female (women ≈2–3× men).
  • Reddit and X: skew male.
  • Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat: slight female tilt.
  • Facebook and YouTube: broadly balanced.

Behavioral trends observed in rural, small-population counties like Baca

• Facebook is the community hub: groups/pages for schools, county offices, churches, 4‑H/FFA, sports, yard sales, weather/wildfire and road alerts; heavy use of Marketplace and local buy/sell/trade.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger and SMS dominate; Snapchat for teens/young adults. WhatsApp use is modest.
• Video: YouTube for “how‑to,” ag and equipment fixes, church services, and local sports streams; TikTok mainly youth-driven short‑form.
• Posting cadence: Peaks early morning and evenings (farm/ranch schedules), plus post‑work hours and weekends; events and urgent alerts can spike anytime.
• Content norms: Preference for real‑name, closed or moderated local groups; strong neighbor-to-neighbor trust signals; quick rumor correction via official county/school/EMS pages.
• Device/bandwidth: Mobile‑first; some reliance on cellular over fixed broadband favors shorter videos, lower bitrates, and image/text posts.
• Local business use: Boosted Facebook/Instagram posts targeted to nearby ZIPs perform well; calls/texts as primary CTAs; cross‑promotion with radio/newspaper common; LinkedIn limited to educators/healthcare/admin/pros.

Notes on methodology and sources

• Benchmarks primarily from Pew Research Center’s “Social Media Use” studies (2023–2024) and Pew teen social media research, adjusted for rural patterns.
• Demographic baselines from U.S. Census/ACS 5‑year estimates; Baca County skews older, which tilts usage toward Facebook/YouTube and away from TikTok/Snapchat overall.
• Without a county-specific survey, treat platform percentages as reasonable ranges, not precise counts.