Costilla County

Do you want the latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023; best for small counties) or the official 2020 Census counts? I can provide both, but figures will differ slightly by source.

Costilla County email landscape (estimates)

• Context: Population 3.6–3.8k spread over ~1,230 sq mi (3 people/sq mi), among Colorado’s most sparsely populated. Service clusters around San Luis/CO‑159; remote parcels often rely on fixed wireless or satellite, with patchy mobile coverage in valleys.
• Digital access: ~60–70% of households have a home internet subscription; another ~10–15% are smartphone‑only; ~25–35% lack a subscription. Public Wi‑Fi (schools/library) fills gaps.
• Email users: ≈2,100–2,600 residents use email at least monthly (derived from local internet subscription levels plus national email adoption among connected users).
• Age distribution of email users: 18–34: ~20–25% (near‑universal use where connected); 35–64: ~50–55%; 65+: ~25–30% (lower but rising adoption). County skews older, so seniors are a larger share than in urban areas.
• Gender split: Roughly even (within ±2 percentage points).
• Trends: Gradual growth in email use as fixed‑wireless and low‑earth‑orbit satellite expand and state/federal broadband funds reach the San Luis Valley. Affordability and distance from fiber backbones remain key barriers; many residents check email via smartphones rather than home broadband.

Notes: Figures are estimates based on ACS-style internet subscription rates for rural counties, national email adoption by age, and local demographics.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Costilla County, Colorado (focus on how it differs from state-level)

Population context and user estimates

• Population base: roughly 3,600–4,000 residents. Adult (18+) population ≈ 2,700–3,000.
• Mobile users (any mobile phone): about 2,700–2,900 residents (≈72–78% of total population). This share is a bit lower than Colorado overall, where mobile-phone access is near-saturation.
• Smartphone users: approximately 2,400–2,600 people (≈65–72% of total population; ≈78–85% of adults). Colorado statewide adult smartphone adoption is closer to ~90%, so Costilla trails by 5–10+ percentage points.
• Smartphone-dependent for internet (no home broadband): estimated 25–35% of adults, materially higher than the statewide rate (typically in the low- to mid-teens). This reflects limited fixed broadband options and lower incomes.

Demographic drivers and how usage differs from Colorado

• Age structure: 65+ share is substantially higher (roughly one-quarter of residents vs ~15% statewide). Implications: more basic/feature-phone retention among seniors, slower device upgrade cycles, and lower 5G handset penetration than the state average.
• Income and affordability: median household income is far below the Colorado median and poverty rates are higher. Implications: outsized reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans (e.g., Cricket, Boost, Straight Talk) and discounts (Lifeline; ACP when available). The winding down of ACP in 2024 likely increased plan downgrades and smartphone-only reliance more than elsewhere in the state.
• Ethnicity and language: majority Hispanic/Latino population. Implications: above-average use of WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for voice/video and group communications; higher uptake of international calling add-ons than the state average.
• Housing patterns: many off-grid and seasonal/vacant parcels. Implications: spotty in-home signal, higher use of signal boosters, and more reliance on mobile hotspots/Starlink in certain areas—patterns less common in urban/suburban Colorado.

Network experience and digital infrastructure

• Coverage pattern: service is concentrated along US-160 (Fort Garland corridor) and CO-159/CO-142 near San Luis. Outside these corridors—especially in the Sangre de Cristo foothills, canyons along 142, and remote subdivision tracts—coverage gaps are common. Colorado overall has far denser, more continuous coverage.
• Carrier reality:
  • Verizon and AT&T generally provide the most reliable rural coverage; AT&T’s FirstNet band improves public-safety coverage mainly along highways and in towns.
  • T-Mobile’s low-band footprint has improved but remains patchy off the main roads; mid-band (2.5 GHz) capacity is limited outside the corridors.
  • 5G is mostly low-band/“extended range” with modest speeds; mid-band 5G (C-band/2.5 GHz) is sparse; mmWave is effectively absent. Statewide, front-range metros see much broader and faster mid-band 5G.
• Capacity vs. coverage: tower density is very low. Sites are engineered for reach, not capacity. Peak-time slowdowns are more pronounced than in populated Colorado counties.
• Backhaul and resilience: fiber backhaul exists along primary corridors, but many rural sites depend on long fiber laterals or microwave. Power and wildfire/weather events can isolate towers and degrade service more often than state averages; backup power coverage is inconsistent outside towns.
• Fixed broadband interplay: fiber-to-the-home is expanding from regional providers/co-ops in and around towns like San Luis and Fort Garland, but large swaths remain unserved or underserved. WISPs and satellite fill gaps. As BEAD and other funds deploy, expect gradual improvements—but the near-term reality remains heavier smartphone/hotspot dependence than statewide.
• Public access: libraries, schools, and a handful of community centers provide critical Wi‑Fi. Students and remote workers more frequently use carrier hotspots than in most Colorado counties.

Usage behaviors that stand out vs state averages

• Higher prepaid/MVNO penetration; more frequent plan switching to manage costs and coverage.
• Greater share of households that tether or use phone hotspots as primary home internet.
• More widespread use of offline/low-data behaviors (downloaded media, Wi‑Fi-first calling, messaging apps) due to data caps and uneven speeds.
• Seasonal spikes: summer tourism and wildfire seasons create heavier, localized load on limited-capacity sites compared to steadier urban traffic patterns.

What to watch (next 2–3 years)

• Fiber and fixed-wireless builds from regional co-ops and BEAD awards should reduce smartphone-only reliance in town centers first; outlying parcels will lag.
• Additional low-band and some mid-band 5G sectors along 160/159 could modestly improve capacity, but terrain and backhaul will remain structural constraints.
• If Lifeline/affordability supports expand or new subsidies emerge post-ACP, expect prepaid smartphone adoption and hotspot use to stay elevated but slightly stabilize.

Notes on methodology

• Estimates triangulate recent ACS population/age structure, Pew smartphone adoption benchmarks (adjusted downward for rural/low-income/older populations), and known rural Colorado coverage patterns. Given the small population, interpret ranges rather than single-point figures.

Costilla County, CO social media snapshot (estimates for 2025)

Context

• Population: roughly 3.5–3.7K residents; about 2.7–2.9K adults (18+)
• Connectivity: ~65–75% of households have broadband; notable share of mobile-only users; bilingual (English/Spanish) community presence

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~65–75% (≈1.8K–2.1K people)
• Teens: 90%+ use at least one platform

Age mix (adult adoption rates)

• 18–29: 90–95%
• 30–49: 80–85%
• 50–64: 60–70%
• 65+: 45–55%

Gender breakdown among users

• Overall users: roughly even, with a slight female tilt (women 52–56%, men 44–48%)
• Platform skews: women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X

Most-used platforms (share of adults; estimates)

• YouTube: 70–80% (broad, cross‑age reach)
• Facebook: 60–70% (especially 30+; community groups, Marketplace)
• Facebook Messenger: 55–65%
• Instagram: 25–35% (higher in under‑40s)
• TikTok: 20–30% overall; 50–70% among under‑30s
• Snapchat: 15–25% overall; 60–75% of teens
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (stronger in Hispanic/Latino and cross‑border family networks)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (skews female)
• X (Twitter): 10–15% (news/sports niche)
• Reddit: 8–12% (tech/hobby niches; skews male/younger)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (lower given local labor mix)
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited footprint; Facebook groups fill this role)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook as the community hub: Local news, school and county/sheriff updates, events, and buy‑sell‑trade groups; Marketplace is heavily used for local commerce
• Video-first, bandwidth-aware: YouTube dominates for how‑to, repairs, homesteading, hunting/fishing, and Spanish‑language content; short, compressed clips perform best on mobile data
• Messaging networks matter: Daily coordination via Messenger and WhatsApp; bilingual group chats are common
• Consumption > creation: Many “lurkers”; posting peaks early morning and evenings; sharp spikes during weather, road closures, wildfires
• Youth split: Teens lean TikTok/Snapchat/YouTube; Facebook used mainly for logistics (teams, schools, family)
• Seasonality: Tourism/outdoor seasons drive more Instagram/TikTok activity; local businesses increase posts and ads around events and hunting season
• Trust/localism: Higher engagement with content from known residents and official county pages; group admins play a role in rumor control

Notes on method

• County-level platform data aren’t directly published. Figures above extrapolate Pew Research Center 2023–2024 platform adoption rates and age/gender skews to Costilla County’s rural age mix, broadband levels (ACS/NTIA), and demographic profile. Treat numbers as directional ranges rather than precise counts.