Conejos County Local Demographic Profile

Which data vintage would you like?

  • Official 2020 Decennial Census counts (best for population/race, fixed point in time), or
  • ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates (best for current demographic/household details for small counties).

If no preference, I’ll use ACS 2018–2022 and report: total population, median age, sex split, race/ethnicity shares, households, families, average household size, and housing tenure (owner/renter).

Email Usage in Conejos County

Conejos County, CO snapshot (estimates)

  • Population and density: ~8–9k residents across ~1,300 sq mi (roughly 6–7 people per sq mi), making last‑mile connectivity costly and uneven.
  • Email users: 4.5k–6k residents use email regularly. Method: adult population (70–80% of residents) × internet access (75–85%) × email adoption (90–95% among internet users).
  • Age distribution of email users (approximate share of users):
    • 18–29: 15–20% (very high adoption, smaller cohort size)
    • 30–49: 30–35% (near‑universal adoption)
    • 50–64: 25–30% (high adoption)
    • 65+: 15–25% (lower adoption; growing with smartphone use)
  • Gender split: ~50/50; no meaningful difference in email usage rates by gender.
  • Digital access trends:
    • Home broadband subscription: roughly 65–75% of households; fixed wireless and fiber are expanding but remain patchy in remote areas.
    • Smartphone‑only internet users: ~10–20%, indicating mobile‑centric email access.
    • Public access: libraries, schools, and municipal Wi‑Fi in towns (e.g., Antonito, La Jara, Manassa, Sanford) support residents without robust home service.
    • Ongoing statewide rural broadband investments (e.g., Colorado Broadband Office/BEAD) are improving speeds and availability, but some sparsely populated census blocks remain underserved.

Mobile Phone Usage in Conejos County

Below is a practical, county-focused snapshot you can use now, with clearly labeled estimates and the main ways Conejos County differs from Colorado overall.

Headline takeaways vs Colorado

  • Lower overall smartphone adoption but a higher share of mobile-only internet households than the state average.
  • Coverage is adequate in towns/along highways but spottier in canyons and western uplands; 5G is mostly low-band with limited mid-band capacity, so speeds lag the state.
  • Higher reliance on prepaid/Lifeline, Spanish-language usage, and WhatsApp/Facebook for communication; longer device replacement cycles.

User estimates (transparent assumptions)

  • Population baseline: ~8,000–8,500 residents (2020 Census; minimal net change since).
  • Adult base (18+): ~6,200–6,700.
  • Adult mobile phone ownership: 85–92% in similar rural Colorado counties.
    • Estimated adult mobile users: ~5,300–6,200.
  • Teens (13–17): roughly 450–550; smartphone ownership ~80–90% (national rural benchmarks).
    • Estimated teen mobile users: ~360–500.
  • Total resident mobile users: approximately 5,700–6,700.
  • Seasonal/visitor load: Tourism (e.g., Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad), hunting seasons, and pass-through traffic can push concurrent device counts 10–20% higher on peak weekends around Antonito/La Jara/Manassa and along US‑285/CO‑17.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

  • Age: Older population share is above the state average; seniors are less likely to own smartphones and more likely to use voice/text or basic LTE devices. This pulls down overall smartphone penetration vs Colorado.
  • Income/affordability: Median incomes are lower than the state; higher prevalence of prepaid plans, family bundles, and Lifeline. The end of new ACP funding in 2024 increased price sensitivity; some households shifted to lower-cost MVNOs or mobile-only internet.
  • Ethnicity/language: A large Hispanic/Latino population (near or above half of residents) increases Spanish-language support needs. WhatsApp and Facebook/Messenger see elevated use for family, community, and cross-border communication.
  • Housing/land use: Scattered rural housing and farm/ranch work means more time spent in fringe coverage areas. A noticeable minority of households rely on cellular data as their primary internet, higher than the Colorado average.
  • Work patterns: Agriculture, outdoor labor, and seasonal tourism lead to daytime use concentrated along roads and in fields—coverage at edges matters as much as peak speeds.

Digital infrastructure and performance

  • Carriers present: AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon are the primary networks; most MVNOs ride one of these. FirstNet (AT&T) is available for public safety.
  • Coverage geography:
    • Strongest in/near towns (Antonito, La Jara, Manassa) and along US‑285/CO‑15/CO‑17.
    • Gaps and weak signal in the Conejos Canyon/western uplands and in some low-lying or forested areas; canyon walls and distance to towers limit indoor service on ranches and outbuildings.
  • 5G/LTE mix:
    • 5G is mostly low-band (wide-area) from T‑Mobile and Verizon; AT&T low-band present on main corridors. Mid-band/C‑band capacity is limited or absent, so real-world 5G speeds often resemble good LTE.
    • Practical experience: towns/highways deliver usable broadband-on-the-go; remote work/video calls can be unreliable in canyons/fields without external antennas.
  • Speeds and latency:
    • Typical downlink in towns: roughly tens of Mbps, with larger variability than metro Colorado; state medians are often 2–3x higher.
    • At the edges, speeds drop to single-digit Mbps or fall back to voice/SMS-only reliability.
  • Capacity and backhaul:
    • Macro sites cluster near highways and towns; limited small-cell/densification compared with Front Range metros.
    • Backhaul improves where local fiber is present; Ciello (San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative) fiber builds help anchor some sites, but microwave backhaul still exists in remote spots, capping peak speeds.
  • Resilience and emergency use:
    • Wireless Emergency Alerts function where signal exists, but dead zones remain. Agencies benefit from Band‑14/FirstNet on core corridors; coverage can still thin in the backcountry.
  • Alternatives/adjacent tech:
    • Fixed fiber is expanding but not universal; some homes use Starlink as primary internet and rely on Wi‑Fi calling indoors to mitigate weak cellular.
    • External LTE/5G antennas and repeaters are more common than in metro areas.

How Conejos differs from statewide trends

  • Adoption: Overall smartphone ownership is a bit lower than Colorado’s urban-weighted average, but the share of households that are “cellular data only” is higher due to limited fixed broadband in some areas.
  • Network experience: Lower mid-band 5G availability and fewer sites per square mile mean lower median speeds and more variability than the state as a whole.
  • Plans and devices: Greater prepaid/MVNO use, more budget Android devices, and longer replacement cycles than the state average.
  • Language/communications: Higher Spanish-language usage and heavier reliance on WhatsApp/Facebook groups for day-to-day communication than the statewide norm.
  • Mobility patterns: More time at coverage edges (fields, canyons), so people optimize for reliability and battery life, not just speed; Wi‑Fi calling and offline-friendly apps are common workarounds.

Notes on data confidence and how to refine

  • For precise local metrics, pull:
    • ACS table S2801 for Conejos County (cellular data–only household share, device/connection mix).
    • FCC mobile coverage maps by technology and provider; FirstNet coverage layers.
    • Ookla or OpenSignal county-level speed distributions and 5G availability.
    • Colorado Broadband Office grant/mapping updates and Ciello/SLVREC buildouts.
  • The user counts above are reasoned estimates based on 2020 population, rural adoption benchmarks, and known infrastructure constraints; replace with ACS 5‑year estimates when available for the exact county-year you need.

Social Media Trends in Conejos County

Social media in Conejos County, CO (short, estimated snapshot)

Context

  • Population 8.3k; roughly 6.3–6.7k adults. Majority rural; high Hispanic/Latino share (50%+), median age ~40s.
  • Broadband/smartphone access typical of rural CO; assume ~70–80% household broadband and ~78–85% adult smartphone ownership.

Overall reach

  • Adults using at least one social platform: ~4.7k–5.4k (about 74–82% of adults).
  • Daily users: roughly 60–70% of adults.

Most‑used platforms (share of adult population; ranges reflect rural and age mix)

  • YouTube: 75–85%
  • Facebook: 65–75% (Groups and Marketplace especially strong)
  • Facebook Messenger: 55–65%
  • Instagram: 30–45%
  • TikTok: 25–40%
  • WhatsApp: 25–40% (elevated by large Hispanic/Latino community)
  • Snapchat: 20–35% (concentrated under 30)
  • Pinterest: 20–30% (skews female)
  • LinkedIn: 10–20% (skews 25–49, college‑educated)
  • X/Twitter: 10–20%
  • Reddit: 8–15%
  • Nextdoor: 5–10%

Age patterns (share using any social media; top platforms)

  • 13–17: 90%+ use; YouTube ~95%, TikTok ~60–70%, Snapchat ~60–70%, Instagram ~60–70%; Facebook low.
  • 18–29: ~95%; YouTube ~90–95%, Instagram ~70–80%, Snapchat ~60–70%, TikTok ~60–70%, Facebook ~50–60%.
  • 30–49: ~82–90%; Facebook ~70–80%, YouTube ~85–90%, Instagram ~40–55%, TikTok ~30–40%, WhatsApp ~25–35%.
  • 50–64: ~70–80%; Facebook ~65–75%, YouTube ~70–80%, WhatsApp ~20–30%, Instagram ~20–30%, TikTok ~15–25%.
  • 65+: ~50–60%; Facebook ~55–65%, YouTube ~55–65%; others low.

Gender tendencies

  • Women: Higher on Facebook (70–80%), Instagram (35–50%), Pinterest (25–35%), Snapchat (25–35%); active in school, church, parenting, and buy‑sell groups.
  • Men: Higher on YouTube (80–90%), Reddit (10–18%), X/Twitter (12–20%); more how‑to, sports, outdoors, and news content.

Behavioral trends

  • Community‑first: Facebook Groups drive local news, emergency alerts (weather/road closures), school sports, churches, and events; Marketplace is a key local commerce hub.
  • Bilingual use: Above‑average Spanish/Spanglish content; WhatsApp and Facebook widely used for family networks and community info.
  • Video‑forward: Strong YouTube use for how‑to, ag/ranch, hunting/fishing, auto repair; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) for under‑35.
  • Messaging > posting: Many interactions shift to group chats on Messenger and WhatsApp (families, teams, work crews).
  • Timing: Peaks evenings (6–10 pm) and weekends; mobile‑first; spikes during storms, school announcements, and seasonal events.

Notes on method

  • Conejos County lacks direct platform‑level reporting; figures are estimates derived from Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. platform adoption (with rural adjustments) and Colorado/ACS demographics, calibrated to the county’s age and Hispanic/Latino profile. Treat as directional, not exact.