Garfield County

Do you want figures from the 2020 Decennial Census or the latest American Community Survey (ACS) estimates (e.g., 2019–2023 5-year)? I can provide a concise, sourced snapshot for population, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and households once you specify the preferred source/year.

Garfield County, CO — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• County context: ~62,000 residents across ~2,950 sq. mi.; density ≈21 people/sq. mi. Towns along I‑70 (Glenwood Springs, Rifle, Carbondale) are far more connected than remote mountain/ranch areas.
• Digital access trends: Mid-to-high 80s percent of households have a broadband subscription (typical for rural Colorado); additional residents rely on mobile data. Smartphone‑only internet users likely 10–15%. Fixed broadband and fiber/cable are common in the I‑70 corridor; coverage is spotty in higher‑elevation and sparsely populated zones.
• Email user count: Applying national email adoption (≈92–95% of internet users) to local connectivity, an estimated 50,000–55,000 residents use email regularly.
• Age distribution (share using email):
  • Teens (13–17): ~80–90%
  • 18–29: ~95%
  • 30–49: ~95%
  • 50–64: ~90%
  • 65+: ~80–85%
• Gender split: Approximately even (near 50/50), with any difference likely within a 1–2 point margin.
• Trend notes: Email remains a near‑universal communication tool for adults; older residents rely on it for services/healthcare. Growth in fiber builds and mobile coverage along I‑70 continues to narrow gaps, but rural dead zones still suppress usage in remote parts of the county.

Garfield County, CO mobile phone usage summary (with estimates) and how it differs from Colorado overall

Context

• Population baseline: ~62–64k residents; ~47–49k adults 18+; ~3.5–4k teens 13–17. Household count ~21–22k.
• Terrain and settlement: small cities/towns along the I‑70/US‑6 corridor (Glenwood Springs, Rifle, Silt, New Castle) and dispersed rural areas; mountain canyons create signal shadows.

Estimated users and adoption

• Adult smartphone users: roughly 40–44k (about 85–90% of adults), plus ~3–4k teens. Total smartphone users countywide ≈ 43–48k.
• Household mobile internet: about 75–80% of households have a cellular data plan in the home (phone/hotspot/tablet). Smartphone‑only home internet likely 15–20% of households, versus roughly 10–13% statewide.
• Multiple‑device lines: work phones, hotspots, and tablets push active mobile lines modestly above the adult user count, especially among field workers.

What’s different from state‑level patterns

• Greater smartphone dependence as primary home internet:
  • Higher share of “smartphone‑only” households than the Colorado average, driven by pockets with limited fixed broadband and by affordability tradeoffs.
• Coverage quality gap outside towns:
  • Reliable 4G LTE along I‑70 and in towns; more dead zones on county roads, in canyons (e.g., Glenwood Canyon side valleys), and north/south of the corridor than typical Front Range counties.
• Slower mobile speeds on average:
  • Typical median downloads in the 25–60 Mbps range in much of the county versus ~80–120 Mbps in Colorado’s urban counties; uplinks often 3–10 Mbps. Congestion spikes during tourism and wildfire seasons.
• 5G profile:
  • Low‑band 5G is common in Glenwood Springs, Rifle, Silt, and New Castle; mid‑band 5G (C‑band/n41) is spottier than statewide norms and rarely extends far beyond town centers. mmWave is largely absent.
• Plan mix and device turnover:
  • Slightly higher prepaid/MVNO usage and longer device‑replacement cycles than the state average, reflecting income mix and work‑device reliance in oil/gas, construction, and tourism.
• Seasonal strain and resilience:
  • Traffic surges in summer tourism and winter sports load local sites; wildfire/wind events can cause backhaul/power interruptions more often than in metro Front Range areas.

Demographic breakdown (drivers and tendencies)

• Hispanic/Latino residents (~30% of county):
  • Similar or higher smartphone ownership than the county average; higher likelihood of smartphone‑only or mobile‑primary home internet than non‑Hispanic households due to price/performance tradeoffs with fixed broadband.
• Age:
  • 18–34: near‑universal smartphone ownership; most likely mobile‑only for home.
  • 35–64: heavy mobile use for work; many rely on hotspots where cable/fiber is absent.
  • 65+: adoption lags the state average (Colorado seniors are relatively high‑adoption); more voice/SMS‑centric usage and weaker 5G device penetration in rural tracts.
• Income:
  • Lower‑income households show high smartphone ownership but lower laptop and fixed‑broadband subscription rates, increasing reliance on mobile plans and MVNOs.
• Workforce patterns:
  • Field‑based jobs (energy, construction, agriculture, outdoor services) raise demand for rugged devices, PTT apps, and hotspots; employers often provision secondary lines.

Digital infrastructure notes

• Radio access:
  • Verizon and AT&T offer the broadest rural footprint; T‑Mobile coverage is solid in towns and along I‑70 but drops more quickly off‑corridor. FirstNet (AT&T) sites improve public‑safety coverage along I‑70 and key valleys.
• Backhaul:
  • Fiber follows I‑70 and major town centers; several rural/mountain sites depend on microwave backhaul, which can constrain capacity and resilience compared with metro Colorado.
• 5G build‑outs:
  • Low‑band 5G is widespread in population centers; mid‑band expansion is gradually infilling along I‑70 but lags the Front Range. Expect incremental C‑band/n41 additions at existing macro sites over the next 12–24 months.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable is available in most town centers; DSL and WISP options persist in outlying areas. As BEAD/other fiber builds extend beyond town limits, the share of smartphone‑only households should fall faster than statewide averages from a higher starting point.

Implications

• Customer acquisition and retention hinge on off‑corridor coverage and affordable, high‑data plans; MVNO and hotspot offerings matter more here than in urban counties.
• Mid‑band 5G upgrades at town‑edge macro sites will yield outsized benefits versus further low‑band overlays.
• Digital equity work should prioritize device support and affordable fixed broadband in rural tracts to reduce mobile‑only dependence.

Methods and sources behind the estimates

• Population/household baselines: recent Census/ACS county estimates.
• Adoption rates: Pew Research (national/rural smartphone ownership), ACS “Computer and Internet Use” indicators for cellular data and smartphone‑only households, and Colorado statewide benchmarking; localized adjustments reflect rural settlement and provider footprints.
• Performance/coverage tendencies: synthesis of FCC/NTIA coverage indicators, carrier public maps, and independent speed‑test aggregators. Figures are presented as ranges due to variability by location and season.

Garfield County, CO – social media snapshot (2025)

Quick size

• Population: ~62,000
• Estimated monthly social media users: 40,000–48,000 (about 65–78% of residents; roughly 75–90% of those age 13+)
• Mobile-first usage dominates; service strongest along the I‑70 corridor (Glenwood Springs, Rifle, New Castle, Silt; patchier in outlying areas)

Age mix (share of local social media users; approx.)

• 13–17: 7–9%
• 18–24: 10–12%
• 25–34: 18–20%
• 35–44: 18–21%
• 45–54: 15–17%
• 55–64: 12–14%
• 65+: 12–15%

Gender breakdown (estimated among social users)

• Female: 48–52%
• Male: 48–52%
• Nonbinary/other: under 1% self-identified in most surveys (likely undercounted)

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users; modeled ranges)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–72%
• Instagram: 40–50%
• Snapchat: 32–40% (dominant among teens and early 20s)
• TikTok: 32–40%
• Pinterest: 25–33% (female-skewed)
• WhatsApp: 22–30% (higher among Spanish-speaking households)
• LinkedIn: 18–25% (stronger in Glenwood Springs/Carbondale professional segments)
• X/Twitter: 12–18%
• Nextdoor: 10–18% (coverage stronger in Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, lighter in rural areas)
• Reddit: 15–22% mostly for consumption/lurking

Behavioral trends to know

• Community utility: Facebook Groups and local pages drive updates on schools, I‑70/Glenwood Canyon closures, wildfire and air quality, local government, and missing pets.
• Marketplace culture: High participation in buy/sell/trade groups; service referrals and contractor recommendations flow through Facebook and Nextdoor.
• Tourism and outdoors: Seasonal spikes in Instagram and TikTok UGC around hot springs, Hanging Lake permits, rafting, and Sunlight Mountain; summer brings a large influx of out-of-county viewers.
• Language: Significant bilingual audience; Spanish-language posts on Facebook and WhatsApp earn above-average shares and forwards for family, health, and school info.
• Messaging-first: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are primary for business inquiries and family coordination; Instagram DMs common for restaurants, outfitters, and salons.
• Time-of-day: Engagement peaks 6–8 a.m., lunch hour, and 7–10 p.m.; weekend afternoons are strong. Shift work in energy, construction, and hospitality pushes late-evening activity.
• Content formats: Short vertical video performs best; photo carousels for real estate and scenery; YouTube and Facebook Live for longer briefings, meetings, and how-tos.
• Trust dynamics: Posts from recognizable local voices (schools, sheriff, fire districts, chambers, churches) outperform generic ads; comments and shares in community groups are key discovery surfaces.
• Events: Facebook Events remain the planning hub for Strawberry Days, the county fair, and town festivals; Instagram Stories for day-of highlights.

Method and caveats

• County-specific social metrics are rarely published. Figures are modeled from Colorado and U.S. benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research), platform ad-reach tools, and rural/mountain-county patterns. Treat percentages as directional ranges rather than exact counts.