Rio Grande County

Key demographics for Rio Grande County, Colorado (U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Census; 2018–2022 ACS 5-year estimates; values rounded)

Population

• Total population: 11,539 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~41–42 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18–64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~19–20%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~45%
• Race alone (sums to ~100%):
  • White: ~83–86%
  • Two or more races: ~7–10%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native: ~1–2%
  • Some other race: ~3–5%
  • Black or African American: ~0.5%
  • Asian: ~0.5%
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: ~0.1%

Households

• Total households: ~4,500–4,700
• Persons per household: ~2.5
• Family households: ~60–65% of households
• Married-couple households: ~45–50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~28–30%
• Householder living alone: ~26–28%; 65+ living alone: ~11–13%
• Homeownership rate: ~70–74%

Insights

• Older age profile than Colorado overall (state median age ~37–38).
• Substantially higher Hispanic/Latino share than the state (~22%).
• Household size near state average; homeownership somewhat higher than state (~67%).

Rio Grande County, CO email usage snapshot

• Population: ~11,500 residents across ~912 sq mi (density ~12–13 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ~8,700 residents (≈75% of the population; ≈90% of adults), derived from local internet subscription levels and national email adoption.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: ~6%
  • 18–34: ~22%
  • 35–54: ~33%
  • 55–64: ~17%
  • 65+: ~22%
• Gender split among users: ≈50% female, ≈50% male (email use is essentially parity by gender).
• Digital access and trends:
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~79% (ACS 2018–2022).
  • Households relying on smartphone-only internet (cellular data without wired broadband): ~12%.
  • Households with no internet subscription: ~9%.
  • Computer/device access in households: ~90%+.
  • Trend: steady gains in broadband adoption and speeds since 2018, with co-op fiber and fixed wireless expanding coverage; rural terrain still creates pockets of slower DSL/wireless outside Monte Vista, Del Norte, and South Fork.
• Connectivity insight: Email penetration tracks broadband access—highest in town centers served by cable/fiber, lower in outlying tracts where connectivity is cost- or coverage-constrained. Seniors’ email adoption is strong where reliable broadband is available, supporting telehealth and government services.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Rio Grande County, Colorado

Market size and adoption (latest available public data; ACS 2018–2022 5-year and 2020 Census)

• Population and households: ~11.5k residents and about 4,600 households.
• Smartphone/mobile-data adoption (household-level):
  • ~75% of households have a cellular data plan for a smartphone/tablet.
  • ~80% have broadband of any type (mobile, fixed, or both).
  • Mobile-only internet households (cellular data plan with no other home internet) are notably elevated at roughly 12–15% of households (≈550–700 households), higher than Colorado’s ~7–8%.
• Individual user estimate:
  • Adults comprise roughly three-quarters of the population; applying typical rural adoption, the county has on the order of 7,900–8,300 adult smartphone users.
  • Total active mobile lines (phones, hotspots, tablets, IoT) plausibly exceed population, consistent with national penetration; a working range is 12–14k lines.

Demographic drivers of usage (Rio Grande County vs Colorado)

• Age structure: Larger senior share (≈20–22% age 65+) vs Colorado (~15–16%). This correlates with more basic plans, slower device upgrade cycles, and higher reliance on voice/SMS in parts of the population.
• Ethnicity/language: Hispanic or Latino share is roughly double the state average (≈45–50% vs ~22%), supporting heavier use of messaging apps and international calling features, family-share plans, and Spanish-language customer support.
• Income and education: Median household income is substantially lower (≈$45–55k vs Colorado ≈$85–95k) and bachelor’s-or-higher attainment is lower (≈20–25% vs state ≈42–45%). These factors align with higher Android and prepaid/MVNO penetration, budget data plans, and longer device lifecycles.
• Household composition: Slightly larger household sizes than the state average support multi-line family plans but also amplify the incidence of mobile-only internet for cost reasons.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern:
  • All three nationwide carriers operate in the county; coverage is strongest along US-160, US-285, and CO-112 through Monte Vista, Del Norte, and South Fork.
  • 5G is present primarily as low-band (wide-area) in and around towns; mid-band 5G capacity is spotty outside population centers; mmWave is effectively absent. LTE remains the default layer across much of the county.
• Speeds and reliability (typical field results in the San Luis Valley context):
  • In-town: generally 20–100+ Mbps down on 5G/LTE; mid-band 5G, when available, can exceed 200 Mbps.
  • Rural edges and drainages west of Del Norte/South Fork: speed drops to single digits with higher latency; pockets of no service persist.
  • Seasonal congestion occurs during summer tourism and on weekends along outdoor recreation corridors.
• Backhaul and last-mile:
  • Fiber has expanded via local/regional providers (e.g., cooperative fiber and regional ISPs) in and near towns; cable or fiber availability drops off quickly outside municipal cores.
  • Many outlying homes and farms rely on fixed wireless and satellite; Starlink adoption is visible in areas beyond fiber/cable footprints. This, in turn, shifts some data load off mobile networks where fixed options exist.
• Public anchors:
  • Schools, libraries, clinics, and municipal buildings in Monte Vista and Del Norte serve as connectivity anchors (public Wi‑Fi and carrier small cells/hardened backhaul nearby).

Trends that differ from the Colorado state level

• Higher reliance on mobile as primary internet: Mobile-only households are roughly 1.5–2x the state share, driven by cost, coverage gaps for fixed broadband, and mobile plan ubiquity.
• Slower 5G capacity rollout: Low-band 5G is present, but mid-band capacity is far less pervasive than in the Front Range metros, keeping average mobile speeds lower and more variable.
• More prepaid/MVNO usage and longer device lifecycles: Income and age structure tilt the market toward cost-optimized plans and slower upgrade cadence than the state average.
• Greater Spanish-speaking user base: A larger Hispanic/Latino population increases demand for bilingual support, international features, and app usage patterns distinct from state urban averages.
• Strong seasonality: Tourism and recreation materially impact network load along corridors and near trailheads, a pattern less pronounced in most urban Front Range counties.
• Agricultural and outdoor work use cases: Higher incidence of ranch/farm operations supports above-average adoption of rugged devices, hotspots for machinery/irrigation monitoring, and wide-area coverage needs over peak speed.

Implications

• Capacity, not just coverage, is the limiting factor outside towns; mid-band 5G densification would yield outsized benefits.
• Targeted buildouts that extend fiber backhaul and add rural small cells or upgraded macro sectors along recreation and farm corridors would mitigate seasonal slowdowns and improve reliability.
• Plans that bundle hotspot data, roaming resilience, and bilingual support are particularly well-suited to the county’s demographic and usage profile.

Rio Grande County, CO — social media usage snapshot (2025 modeled estimates)

Baseline

• Population: ~11.6K residents; ~9.4K aged 13+
• Broadband access: ~80–85% of households have an internet subscription

Overall social media penetration

• Social media users: ~8.3K residents
• Share of total population: ~72%
• Share of 13+ population: ~88%
• Access by device: ~95% mobile users; desktop/laptop used mainly for work/school

User mix by age (share of social media users)

• 13–17: 7%
• 18–24: 12%
• 25–34: 17%
• 35–44: 18%
• 45–54: 16%
• 55–64: 15%
• 65+: 15%

Gender breakdown (share of social media users)

• Female: 52%
• Male: 48%

Most‑used platforms in the county (share of social media users using monthly; overlaps expected)

• YouTube: 79%
• Facebook: 76%
• Instagram: 43%
• TikTok: 36%
• Snapchat: 28%
• WhatsApp: 25% (notably higher among Hispanic/Spanish‑speaking households)
• LinkedIn: 12%
• X (Twitter): 18%
• Nextdoor: 10% (pockets of activity around Del Norte, Monte Vista, South Fork)

Behavioral trends and engagement patterns

• Community-first usage: Strong reliance on Facebook Groups/Pages for schools, churches, local government, events, and buy‑sell‑trade; Marketplace is a top driver of daily logins
• Video-forward consumption: YouTube dominates for how‑to, outdoor, farming/ranching, and local news; short‑form video via Reels/TikTok is the growth area for 18–34
• Messaging and bilingual communication: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous; WhatsApp usage is concentrated among bilingual and multigenerational households for family and community coordination
• Trust dynamics: Content from known local people and institutions outperforms national brands; authentic, place‑based posts and Spanish‑language variants lift engagement
• Seasonality: Noticeable spikes around spring planting, summer tourism/outdoor season, harvest, school calendar, and county events; evening engagement peaks roughly 7–9 pm local time
• Geo-behavior: Targeting performs best when tightened to town centers and highways, with creative tailored to outdoor recreation, agriculture, and local deals

How to act on this mix

• Prioritize Facebook + YouTube for reach, Instagram + TikTok for under‑35 engagement, and WhatsApp/Messenger for response and community activation
• Use short, captioned video, local faces/landmarks, and bilingual creative to improve completion and click‑through rates
• Lean on Groups, events, and Marketplace placements for cost‑efficient local penetration

Notes on method

• Figures are 2025 modeled estimates for Rio Grande County derived from American Community Survey demographics, Pew Research Center platform adoption patterns, and U.S. rural usage adjustments; use for planning with a ±3–5 percentage‑point tolerance on platform shares and a ±0.5K tolerance on total users