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.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Colorado
- Adams
- Alamosa
- Arapahoe
- Archuleta
- Baca
- Bent
- Boulder
- Broomfield
- Chaffee
- Cheyenne
- Clear Creek
- Costilla
- Crowley
- Custer
- Delta
- Denver
- Dolores
- Douglas
- Eagle
- El Paso
- Elbert
- Fremont
- Garfield
- Gilpin
- Grand
- Gunnison
- Hinsdale
- Huerfano
- Jackson
- Jefferson
- Kiowa
- Kit Carson
- La Plata
- Lake
- Larimer
- Las Animas
- Lincoln
- Logan
- Mesa
- Mineral
- Moffat
- Montezuma
- Montrose
- Morgan
- Otero
- Ouray
- Park
- Phillips
- Pitkin
- Prowers
- Pueblo
- Rio Blanco
- Rio Grande
- Routt
- Saguache
- San Juan
- San Miguel
- Sedgwick
- Summit
- Teller
- Washington
- Weld
- Yuma