Pueblo County

Key demographics — Pueblo County, Colorado (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 ACS 5-year unless noted)

• Population: ~170,000 (2020 Census: 168,162)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~40 years
  • Under 18: ~23%
  • 18–64: ~58%
  • 65 and over: ~19%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50.5–51%
  • Male: ~49–49.5%
• Race/ethnicity (share of total population):
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~45%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~48–49%
  • Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
  • Asian alone, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
  • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic: ~0.1%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2%
• Households and families:
  • Total households: ~67,000–68,000
  • Average household size: ~2.4–2.5
  • Family households: ~62%
  • Married-couple families: ~44%
  • Households with children under 18: ~27%
  • Nonfamily households: ~38% (one-person households ~31%)
  • Homeownership rate: ~66–67%

Insights:

• Pueblo County is older than Colorado overall (state median age 38) and has a much higher Hispanic/Latino share than the state (22%)
• Household size is slightly below the Colorado average and homeownership is near the state average

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census

Pueblo County, CO has about 170,000 residents (≈71 people/sq mi). Estimated email users: ≈130,000 (≈76% of residents; roughly 90% of adults), based on local internet access levels and national email adoption.

Age profile of email users:

• 13–17: ~7%
• 18–29: ~16%
• 30–49: ~31%
• 50–64: ~28%
• 65+: ~18%

Gender split among users mirrors the population: ~51% female, ~49% male.

Digital access and trends:

• Households with a computer: ~92%
• Households with a broadband subscription: ~83%
• Smartphone-only internet access: ~11%
• Broadband adoption has risen by roughly 10 percentage points since 2016, narrowing the gap with the state, but rural tracts still trail the City of Pueblo.

Connectivity and density facts:

• Most residents cluster in the Pueblo urban area with cable and some fiber service; outlying areas rely more on DSL and fixed wireless, constraining speeds and reliability.
• Public libraries, schools, and CSU Pueblo provide free Wi‑Fi that supports email access for lower‑income households.

Overall, email is near-universal among working-age adults; remaining gaps are concentrated among seniors and households with limited or smartphone‑only broadband outside the urban core.

Mobile phone usage in Pueblo County, Colorado — key statistics and how they differ from state-level patterns

Overall user base and adoption

• Adult user estimate: ~115,000 smartphone users in Pueblo County (≈85–90% of adults). This is a few percentage points lower than Colorado’s adult smartphone adoption, which is typically around 90%+.
• Household smartphone access: Approximately 58,000–60,000 of the county’s ~66,000 households have at least one smartphone. Pueblo’s household smartphone rate trails the state by about 2–4 percentage points.

Mobile dependence and home internet

• Smartphone-dependent (mobile-only) households: Roughly 20–23% in Pueblo rely on cellular data as their primary/only home internet connection, versus about 13–16% statewide. This gap is one of the most consequential differences from the Colorado average and is driven by income and affordability factors.
• Households with any cellular data plan: ~74–78% in Pueblo versus ~80–84% statewide.
• Wireline substitution: Higher reliance on mobile hotspots in Pueblo than statewide, particularly in lower-income and renter households.

Demographic breakdown

• Age:
  • 18–34: Very high adoption (≈93–97%), near parity with Colorado overall.
  • 35–64: High adoption (≈88–92%), slightly below state average.
  • 65+: Noticeably lower adoption (≈72–78%) than the statewide senior rate (≈80–85%), increasing the county’s digital divide among older adults.
• Income:
  • <$35k household income: Smartphone ownership remains high (≈80–85%) but trails Colorado by several points; mobile-only internet is common (≈35–40% in Pueblo vs ≈22–26% statewide).
  • ≥$75k: Near-universal smartphone ownership (≈95%+), mirroring statewide rates.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Hispanic/Latino residents (a larger share of Pueblo’s population than the state average) exhibit strong smartphone adoption (≈89–92%) and above-average mobile-only home internet use (≈28–32%), reflecting cost-sensitive, mobile-first behavior.
  • Non-Hispanic White residents: High adoption (≈86–88%) with lower mobile-only rates (≈18–21%) than Hispanic residents, but still above statewide White averages due to local affordability dynamics.
• Education and housing:
  • Lower educational attainment cohorts and renters show elevated mobile-only reliance relative to state peers.
  • Households with children are highly smartphone-saturated, but still report higher hotspot use for homework access than the state average.

Usage patterns and devices

• Platform mix: Pueblo skews slightly more Android than the statewide average, consistent with income-sensitive device choices; prepaid plans are more prevalent than in Colorado overall.
• Multi-line households: Fewer premium multi-line postpaid bundles than statewide; higher MVNO participation.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• 4G/5G coverage:
  • Pueblo city, Pueblo West, and the I-25/US‑50 corridors are well-covered by all three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) with mid-band 5G widely available since 2023.
  • Coverage weak spots persist in western foothills (e.g., Beulah area) and some agricultural tracts east of the city; these pockets drive higher LTE fallback and variability in indoor coverage.
• Speeds and quality:
  • In and around Pueblo city: Typical mid-band 5G median downloads in the ~150–250 Mbps range; LTE ranges widely (≈10–60 Mbps).
  • Rural/edge areas: LTE often 5–25 Mbps with greater latency and congestion sensitivity than state urban averages.
  • Compared with Colorado’s metro-driven statewide medians, Pueblo’s mobile speeds are modestly lower and less consistent outside the urban core.
• Capacity and backhaul:
  • Spectrum in active use includes T‑Mobile n41 (2.5 GHz) and AT&T/Verizon C‑Band (n77, 3.7 GHz) across the urban core; additional low-band layers (600/700/850 MHz) provide countywide reach.
  • Fiber backhaul is strongest along I‑25/US‑50; outside these corridors, limited backhaul options contribute to performance gaps relative to the Front Range’s largest metros.
• Tower deployment trend:
  • Since 2020, incremental site densification and sector upgrades around Pueblo city and the I‑25 corridor; fewer new macro sites in rural tracts compared to state growth hot spots (Denver metro, Colorado Springs, Northern Colorado), reinforcing the urban–rural performance divide.

What’s distinct about Pueblo County versus Colorado overall

• Higher mobile-only dependence: A defining difference. More households in Pueblo substitute cellular for home broadband, driven by affordability and housing mix.
• Slightly lower adoption among seniors and lower-income residents than statewide, widening intra-county gaps in digital inclusion.
• More prepaid/MVNO participation and longer device replacement cycles, reflecting cost-conscious usage patterns.
• Infrastructure is solid along major corridors but thins more quickly with distance from Pueblo city than in most Front Range counties, yielding larger performance disparities within the county than the state norm.

Bottom line

• Pueblo County is a high-smartphone, mobile-first market with roughly 115,000 adult users and near-ubiquitous device presence in families, but it diverges from Colorado averages with notably higher mobile-only home internet reliance, slightly lower senior adoption, and more cost-sensitive plan/device choices. Network capacity and speeds in the urban core are competitive, while rural edges experience more pronounced coverage and performance gaps than typical statewide.

Social media usage in Pueblo County, Colorado (2025 snapshot)

Overall user stats

• Population baseline: ~170,000 residents; roughly 85% are age 13+, yielding ~145,000 potential social users.
• Share using at least one social platform (including YouTube): 84–86% of residents 13+ (≈120,000–125,000 people).
• Mobile-first behavior dominates; video is the primary content format consumed and shared.

Age groups (share using at least one platform; platform preferences within each group)

• 13–17: ~95% use social. Strongest platforms: YouTube ~95%, TikTok ~67%, Snapchat ~60%+, Instagram ~60%+. Facebook ~30%+.
• 18–29: ~95% use social. YouTube ~95%, Instagram ~78%, Snapchat ~65%, TikTok ~62%, Facebook ~70%.
• 30–49: ~86% use social. YouTube ~92%, Facebook ~77%, Instagram ~49%, TikTok ~39%, Snapchat ~27%.
• 50–64: ~73% use social. YouTube ~83%, Facebook ~73%, Instagram ~34%, TikTok ~22%.
• 65+: ~50% use social. YouTube ~62%, Facebook ~50%, Instagram ~15%, TikTok ~8%.

Gender breakdown

• Overall among social users: ~54% female, ~46% male (local mix closely mirrors national patterns).
• Platform skews locally align with national:
  • Facebook and Instagram: female-leaning (Facebook ~56% female; Instagram ~54% female).
  • TikTok and Snapchat: female-leaning (~58% female for each).
  • YouTube: slight male tilt (~54% male).
  • X (Twitter) and Reddit: male-leaning (X ~60% male; Reddit ~65% male).

Most-used platforms in Pueblo County (estimated share of residents 13+ who use each)

• YouTube: 82–85%
• Facebook: 64–68%
• Instagram: 42–46%
• TikTok: 32–36%
• Snapchat: 28–32%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–60%
• WhatsApp: 25–30% overall; notably higher among Hispanic residents (≈35–45%)
• X (Twitter): 20–23%
• Reddit: 18–22%
• LinkedIn: 24–27%
• Nextdoor: ~15–18% of adults (higher engagement for neighborhood and public-safety updates)

Behavioral trends and local nuances

• Community and civic hubs: Facebook Groups, local news pages, school district and city/county pages drive updates, events, lost-and-found, and public safety/wildfire information. Nextdoor is used for neighborhood alerts and service recommendations.
• Marketplace behavior: Facebook Marketplace is a top channel for buying/selling vehicles, furniture, tools, and local services; posts with multiple clear photos and same-day replies convert best.
• Video-first consumption: Short-form video (Reels/TikTok) is the fastest-growing format; how-to, local features, and events perform well on YouTube. Cross-posting Reels to Facebook increases reach among 30+.
• Messaging as a service channel: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous for appointment requests and customer service; WhatsApp is common in bilingual and Hispanic households and among local small businesses.
• Language and culture: With a large Hispanic community, bilingual (English/Spanish) posts and ads outperform monolingual content for many categories; WhatsApp and Facebook Groups are key for community coordination.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (roughly 6–9 p.m.) and weekends; weather and school/emergency updates generate sharp, short-term surges.
• Trust and discovery: Word-of-mouth in Facebook Groups and Nextdoor recommendations often outrank formal ads for trades, home services, and childcare; UGC and local testimonials materially lift response.
• Youth patterns: Teens and young adults favor Snapchat for messaging and TikTok/YouTube for entertainment and discovery; Instagram remains essential for local nightlife, sports, and campus-related content.
• Older adults: Facebook remains the daily driver for 50+; event posts, public service information, and local deals outperform national brand creative.

Notes on methodology

• County-level platform counts are not officially published; figures above are modeled for Pueblo County using the county’s demographic profile (U.S. Census/ACS), 2023–2024 Pew Research Center platform adoption by age and gender, and platform ad-reach benchmarks. They are suitable for planning and targeting.