Custer County

Do you want figures from the 2020 Decennial Census or the latest American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (2019–2023)? I can provide population size, age (median and key brackets), sex, race/ethnicity shares, and household counts/average size/tenure once you pick the source-year.

Custer County, CO (pop. ~5,200; ~7 people/sq. mile) is rural and mountainous, shaping digital access and email use.

Estimated email users

• Adults (18+): ~4,350. Email adoption in rural, older areas is high but not universal; estimate 3,800–4,100 adult users.

By age (share of total population; est. email adoption)

• 18–44: ~20% of residents; ~95–98% use email → ~1,000 users.
• 45–64: ~30%; ~90–94% use email → ~1,400–1,450 users.
• 65+: ~34%; ~80–86% use email → ~1,450–1,520 users.
• Under 18: ~16%; limited personal email use.

Gender split

• County is roughly balanced (≈50–51% male, 49–50% female). Email usage differences by gender are minimal; user base ~evenly split.

Digital access and trends

• Households with any internet subscription: roughly 79–83% (below state average due to terrain and low density).
• Access modes: DSL and fixed wireless are common; satellite (e.g., newer LEO options) is growing in remote areas; limited fiber concentrated near towns.
• Smartphone-only households: ~12–18%.
• Connectivity strongest in and around Westcliffe–Silver Cliff; coverage gaps persist in outlying ranchlands and canyons.

Custer County, CO: mobile phone usage snapshot (how it differs from Colorado overall)

User estimates (residents; excludes visitors)

• Population base: roughly 5,100–5,600 residents (2024 est.).
• Adults (18+): about 4,300–4,800.
• Mobile phone ownership (any cell): ~88–92% of adults → 3,800–4,400 users.
• Smartphone ownership: ~75–82% of adults (lower than CO overall) → 3,200–3,900 users.
• Mobile-only households: materially lower than Colorado’s average; landline retention among seniors is notably higher than state norms.

Why these differ from state-level

• Older age structure: Custer has a much higher 65+ share (roughly one-third or more of residents) than Colorado overall. This pulls down smartphone adoption, app-based service use, and mobile-only household rates.
• Rural/mountain terrain: coverage gaps and lower average speeds are more common than state averages, shifting behavior toward voice/SMS reliability, Wi‑Fi offload in town centers, and keeping landlines for redundancy.
• Seasonal swings: summer visitors and second-home use create short-term congestion spikes that are a smaller factor at the state level.
• Plan/device mix: slightly greater use of basic or prepaid plans and older devices versus Colorado’s urban Front Range markets.

Demographic breakdown and behavioral implications

• Age: High senior share → lower smartphone penetration, more feature phones, larger share relying on voice/SMS, slower uptake of mobile banking/telehealth apps (though growing).
• Income: Median household income below the state median → more price-sensitive plan selection; hotspotting and shared data plans are common.
• Work patterns: More retirees, ranching, and small businesses; remote work presence exists but is smaller than state average. Where home broadband is limited, residents may lean on mobile data as a substitute, especially in town.
• Seasonal/part-time residents and tourism (Westcliffe/Silver Cliff, Dark Sky tourism) add intermittent peaks in active devices and data usage.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage pattern: Best reliability along CO-69 and CO-96 and in the Westcliffe–Silver Cliff corridor; significant dead zones toward the Sangre de Cristo range, San Isabel National Forest, canyons, and sparsely populated roads.
• 4G/5G status:
  • 4G LTE: Primary workhorse; Verizon and AT&T generally strongest; T‑Mobile present but more variable outside the town corridor.
  • 5G: Predominantly low-band “coverage 5G” with modest speed gains over LTE; little to no mid-band capacity 5G in most of the county, unlike many Colorado metro areas.
• Tower density: Few macro sites relative to area; sites cluster near highways and towns. Minimal small‑cell/DAS presence.
• Backhaul: Mix of fiber where available and microwave elsewhere; backhaul constraints can cap speeds even where signal is strong. New fiber builds in the region would materially improve mobile capacity.
• Power and resiliency: Mountain weather and outages can impact sites without long-duration backup; residents often keep landlines or satellite messengers for redundancy—more common than statewide.
• Public Wi‑Fi and offload: Heavily used at the library, schools, and businesses in Westcliffe/Silver Cliff to compensate for weak mobile data in outlying areas.
• Emergency services: Wireless Emergency Alerts function where coverage exists; topography still creates no‑service pockets that are rarer in most Colorado population centers.

Trend lines to watch (county vs state)

• Adoption: Smartphone adoption among seniors is rising but will likely remain below state levels for the next few years.
• Network upgrades: Expect incremental LTE/low‑band 5G improvements and occasional new sectors; mid‑band 5G buildout will lag Front Range timelines.
• Capacity management: Seasonal congestion spikes will remain a planning issue; any new fiber backhaul or tower additions will yield outsized benefits compared with urban areas.
• Substitution: In areas with weak wired broadband, continued reliance on mobile data and fixed wireless will persist; in‑town Wi‑Fi remains an important complement.

Notes on method

• Estimates synthesize recent ACS demographics, rural adoption patterns from national surveys, statewide telecom trends, FCC coverage filings, and known rural/mountain infrastructure constraints. Figures are presented as ranges to reflect small-county variability and seasonal effects.

Below is a concise, decision-ready snapshot. Because there’s no official county-level survey of social media use, figures are modeled estimates (triangulating 2024 Pew Research U.S. platform adoption, rural vs. urban gaps, and Custer County’s older age profile). Treat ranges as directional.

Headline snapshot

• Population: ≈5,500 residents; older-skewing and largely rural.
• Estimated social media users: 3,000–3,700 residents age 13+ (≈66–75% of adults).

Age and gender profile of local users

• Age mix among social users (estimated share of users):
  • 13–17: 5–8%
  • 18–34: 12–18%
  • 35–54: 25–32%
  • 55–64: 18–22%
  • 65+: 28–35% (higher than national due to local demographics)
• Gender: Slight female skew overall among active users (≈52–55%). Women over-index on Facebook/Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, and X.

Most-used platforms in Custer County (share of adults who use each; modeled range)

• YouTube: 78–85%
• Facebook: 68–75%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• Pinterest: 28–35%
• TikTok: 20–28%
• Snapchat: 18–24%
• X (Twitter): 12–18%
• WhatsApp: 10–15%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 8–12% (varies by neighborhood coverage)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community first: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups/Pages for road conditions, wildfire/weather updates, lost-and-found pets, school and county notices. Local government, sheriff, fire, and event pages are among the most-followed.
• Marketplace > “influencers”: Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell/trade groups drive sustained engagement; word-of-mouth and service recommendations are common.
• Event-centric spikes: Peaks around county fairs, rodeos, school events, hunting seasons, and summer tourism; posts about closures, hazards, and seasonal travel see rapid sharing.
• Visual localism: Photos/videos of scenery, wildlife, ranching, 4‑H, and property renovations perform best; practical how-tos and “before/after” content outpace polished ads.
• Business use: Most small businesses prioritize Facebook for updates and messaging; Instagram is used by boutiques, artisans, realtors; YouTube appears for property tours and how-tos. TikTok usage exists but is niche and skewed younger.
• Messaging patterns: Facebook Messenger dominates for local coordination; WhatsApp usage is modest except among families with out-of-area ties.
• Timing: Engagement clusters early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (6–9 p.m.); mid-day dips, reflecting outdoor and shift-work schedules.
• Connectivity constraints: Uneven broadband pushes mobile-first habits; shorter videos and image posts outperform long livestreams outside town centers.

Notes and how to refine these numbers

• These are modeled estimates based on national platform adoption (Pew 2024), rural usage differentials, and Custer County’s age structure. Small-population error bars are wide.
• For tighter, local figures: combine Facebook/Instagram Ads Manager “potential reach” for Custer County, a 5–7 question community survey via local FB groups, and page insights from key local orgs to calibrate platform shares within ±5 percentage points.