Prowers County

Key demographics – Prowers County, Colorado

Population size

• 11,999 (2020 Census)
• 2023 estimate: about 11.9K (U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2023)

Age

• Median age: ~36 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 5 years: ~7%
• Under 18 years: ~26%
• 65 years and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022)

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~43–44%
• White alone: ~85–87% (includes many who also identify as Hispanic)
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~49–53%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1–2%
• Asian alone: ~0.5–1%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~4,300–4,500
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~2/3 of households
• One-person households: ~1/4 to 1/3
• Seniors 65+ living alone: ~1 in 8 households

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year; Vintage 2023 Population Estimates).

Prowers County, CO snapshot

• Population: ~12,000; land area ~1,644 sq mi; density ~7.3 residents/sq mi.
• Households: 4,700; with home broadband: ~75% (3,525 households).

Estimated email users

• Total email users: ~7,500 (about 63% of residents; ~85% of adults).
• Gender split among email users: ~50% female, ~50% male.

Age distribution of email users (share of email users; adoption high among working-age adults)

• 18–29: ~20%
• 30–49: ~34%
• 50–64: ~26%
• 65+: ~20%

Digital access and trends

• Access mode: ~75% of households have wired home broadband; ~15% are mobile-only (smartphone) users.
• Urban vs rural: Fiber and higher speeds are concentrated in Lamar; outlying communities commonly rely on DSL and fixed wireless, with more variable speeds and latency.
• Public/anchor access: Libraries, schools, and municipal facilities remain important for residents without reliable home service.
• Trendline: Gradual uptick in broadband subscriptions and smartphone dependence; email remains near-universal among connected adults (roughly 90%+), with seniors lagging but steadily improving.

Implications

• Email penetration is strongest among 30–49 and 50–64 cohorts.
• Low population density and long last‑mile runs raise deployment costs, sustaining a residual access gap outside Lamar.

Mobile phone usage in Prowers County, Colorado (2024–2025 snapshot)

Method note: Figures are the latest available point estimates synthesized from U.S. Census/ACS 2022–2023, FCC coverage filings (BDC), state broadband reports, and industry benchmarks for rural Colorado counties with similar population density and income profiles.

At-a-glance

• Population: ~11,700; households: ~4,700
• Estimated unique mobile phone users (ages 12+): ~8,800 (range 8,600–9,100)
• Adult smartphone adoption: ~86% (range 83–88%)
• Households with a smartphone present: ~88%
• Wireless-only (no landline) households: ~63% (state ≈ 70%)
• Households relying on cellular data as their only home internet: ~14% (state ≈ 8%)
• Households with no home internet: ~10% (state ≈ 4%)

User estimates and adoption

• Adult mobile phone ownership (any mobile): ~92% of adults, yielding ~8,000 adult users; adding teens (12–17) brings total unique users to ~8,800.
• Smartphone vs basic phone: Smartphones account for roughly 93% of active handsets; basic/feature phones are more common among older adults than the state average.
• Multi-line users: ~1.2–1.3 mobile lines per adult user, reflecting work and IOT lines (farm equipment, hotspots).

Demographic breakdown (ownership and dependence)

• Age
  • 18–34: smartphone ownership ~96–98%; high data usage and app reliance.
  • 35–64: ~85–90% smartphone ownership; strongest BYOD use for work.
  • 65+: ~68–75% smartphone ownership; higher share of basic phones and voice/text-centric plans than state average.
• Income and education
  • Median household income is materially below the state level; this correlates with more prepaid plans, larger family plans, and higher likelihood of smartphone-only internet access at home.
  • Smartphone-dependent internet users (people who primarily access the internet via phone and lack fixed broadband) are meaningfully higher than the Colorado average.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Hispanic/Latino residents comprise roughly four in ten county residents, well above the state average; this group shows higher smartphone-only internet reliance than the county’s non-Hispanic White population, driven by income and housing factors.
• Geography within the county
  • Lamar and immediate surroundings have the highest 5G availability and fastest speeds.
  • Smaller towns and agricultural areas rely more on LTE and experience greater signal variability indoors and along section roads.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Networks and coverage
  • Carriers: AT&T (including FirstNet), Verizon, and T-Mobile operate countywide; regional MVNOs ride these networks.
  • 5G: Deployed in and around Lamar and along the US‑50/US‑287 corridors; practical population coverage ~60–70% versus >90% statewide. Outside these areas, LTE is the primary layer.
  • LTE: Covers nearly all primary highways and town centers; coverage gaps persist on remote ranch roads and in low-lying areas.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Typical median download speeds
    • Lamar: ~40–80 Mbps on 5G (peaks higher near newer sites); ~10–40 Mbps on LTE.
    • Outlying areas: ~5–20 Mbps on LTE, with occasional drops below 5 Mbps at cell edges.
  • Uplink speeds are commonly 5–15 Mbps in town and 1–8 Mbps rurally, affecting live video and telehealth quality outside Lamar.
  • Peak-time congestion is moderate; scheduled events in Lamar can briefly saturate sectors.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Fiber backhaul is present in Lamar and on main corridors via regional providers and utility affiliates, improving 5G capacity in town.
  • Schools, libraries, and clinics are on fiber, providing strong indoor Wi‑Fi offload in town centers; rural community sites rely more on fixed wireless.
• Public safety and resilience
  • FirstNet coverage mirrors AT&T’s low‑band footprint; indoor penetration improves where sites have Band 14.
  • Weather and power events can isolate fringe areas; users commonly keep vehicle boosters or high‑gain antennas on farms.

How Prowers County differs from Colorado overall

• Lower 5G reach and lower typical speeds outside the county seat; LTE remains the workhorse in rural zones.
• Higher reliance on smartphones for home internet (cellular-only) and a larger share of households with no home internet at all.
• Lower wireless-only household share than the state average, reflecting an older age mix that retains some landlines—yet still a clear majority are wireless‑only.
• More prepaid and budget plan usage, driven by lower median income; device upgrade cycles run longer than the state norm.
• Greater urban–rural performance gap within the county itself: in-town experience tracks closer to state averages, while out-of-town usage lags on both coverage and throughput.

Actionable implications

• Ensure strong LTE coverage and low‑band 5G outside Lamar; capacity upgrades in Lamar deliver the highest short-term ROI.
• Support smartphone-only users with data-efficient app modes and robust offline functionality.
• Offer prepaid-friendly plans and bilingual support; in-store presence in Lamar is disproportionately impactful.
• For telehealth, education, and ag-tech, prioritize uplink performance and Wi‑Fi calling readiness, and communicate booster/antenna options for remote users.

Prowers County, CO social media snapshot (2025, best-available local estimates modeled from Pew Research Center 2024 usage rates and the county’s age–gender mix from the American Community Survey)

Overall penetration

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~80% of residents 18+
• Teen participation (13–17): ~95%

Most‑used platforms among adults (share of 18+ who use each)

• YouTube: ~78%
• Facebook: ~66%
• Instagram: ~36%
• Pinterest: ~30%
• TikTok: ~28%
• Snapchat: ~27%
• WhatsApp: ~20%
• LinkedIn: ~18%
• X (Twitter): ~14%
• Reddit: ~12%
• Nextdoor: ~6%

Age profile (usage patterns)

• Teens (13–17): Heavy on YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok; Instagram moderate; Facebook low. Short‑form video dominates, posting is frequent but largely private (Snaps/DMs).
• 18–29: Nearly universal use; IG/Snap/TikTok for daily socializing; YouTube for entertainment/how‑to; Facebook used for events and local groups, not as a primary feed.
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube anchor usage; Instagram moderate; TikTok/Pinterest mixed (parents, DIY, recipes).
• 50–64: Facebook first, YouTube second; lighter on IG/TikTok; Pinterest for projects and shopping ideas.
• 65+: Facebook is the default; YouTube for news, tutorials, and church/school content; minimal presence elsewhere.

Gender breakdown (adults)

• Any‑platform usage: Women ~82%, Men ~78%
• Platform skews: Women over‑indexed on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; Men over‑indexed on YouTube, Reddit, X. WhatsApp use elevated among Hispanic women due to family group messaging.

Behavioral trends in Prowers County

• Facebook is the community hub: Groups, school and sports pages, churches, local government alerts, and Marketplace drive the highest engagement. Event‑driven spikes (weather, closures, festivals) are common.
• Video first, posting second: Most residents watch more than they post. YouTube and Reels/TikTok are leaned on for how‑to, farm/ranch, auto repair, hunting/fishing, and local sports highlights.
• Messaging over public feeds for youth: Snapchat and Instagram DMs are primary communication channels for teens and young adults; public posting is selective.
• Local commerce and services: Facebook Marketplace is the primary channel for buy/sell; boosted posts by local businesses perform best when tied to time‑bound offers or events.
• Language/community: A sizable Hispanic population increases WhatsApp and Spanish‑language Facebook Group usage for family networks and local information.
• Access patterns: Nearly all usage is mobile; engagement peaks evenings and weekends. Outlying areas with slower broadband see fewer long uploads but steady short‑video consumption.

Notes

• Figures are localized estimates derived by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption by age/gender to Prowers County’s demographic structure; true platform operators do not publish verified county‑level user counts. Percentages represent share of adult residents unless otherwise noted.