Hamilton County

Data source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census and 2016–2020 American Community Survey 5‑year estimates). All figures are countywide.

Population

• Total (2020): 14,004.

Age

• Median age: ~43–44 years.
• Age distribution (approx.): under 18: ~21%; 18–64: ~58%; 65 and over: ~21%.

Gender

• Female: ~52%; Male: ~48%.

Race / Ethnicity

• Non‑Hispanic White: ~60–63%.
• Black or African American (non‑Hispanic): ~32–35%.
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~4–6%.
• Two or more races and other races (combined): ~1–3%.

Households & Housing

• Number of households: ≈5,000–5,200.
• Average household size: ~2.5–2.7 persons.
• Family vs nonfamily households: majority family households (roughly two‑thirds family).
• Owner‑occupied housing rate: majority owner‑occupied (roughly 60–70%).

Economic snapshot (household-level)

• Median household income: low relative to state — roughly in the mid‑$30,000s to low‑$40,000s range.
• Poverty rate: high for Florida counties — roughly mid‑20% range.

Key insights

• Hamilton County is a small, rural county with a majority non‑Hispanic White population and a substantial Black population.
• The population skews older than national medians, with a sizable 65+ cohort.
• Household sizes are modest; homeownership is common but incomes are relatively low and poverty rates are elevated compared with state and national averages.

Hamilton County, FL (2020 pop. 14,004; density ≈27 people/sq mi) is a small, rural county with modest digital infrastructure. Estimated email users: 11,000 (≈78% of residents). Basis: 2020 population, national adult email penetration (90%, Pew) adjusted for lower rural broadband/subscription rates. Age distribution of email users (estimated): 18–34: 20–25%; 35–54: 35–40%; 55–64: 15–20%; 65+: 15–20% — older cohorts use email less frequently but still for health, finance, and government services. Gender split: essentially even, roughly 49% male / 51% female among users. Digital access trends: growing mobile-first access (smartphones as primary internet device), modest fixed broadband adoption with persistent gaps in home high-speed service, and higher reliance on public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools, community centers) and cellular hotspots. Connectivity facts: sparse population and limited fiber footprint slow provider investment; broadband availability and speeds are below Florida state averages, creating a digital divide that suppresses universal email access and limits richer online services for parts of the county.

Summary — mobile phone usage in Hamilton County, Florida

Overview

• Hamilton County is a small, rural county (population ≈ 14,000). Mobile phones are the dominant consumer internet device, but adoption patterns differ meaningfully from statewide Florida averages: fewer fixed‑broadband subscriptions, a higher share of mobile‑only households, lower smartphone ownership rates among older and lower‑income residents, and more persistent coverage/quality gaps in outlying areas.

User estimates (county-level estimates; ranges indicate uncertainty)

• Adults owning a smartphone: ≈ 80% (estimate range 75–85%). Smartphone ownership is lower than the Florida adult average (≈ 88–92%).
• Households relying exclusively on a smartphone for internet access (“mobile‑only”): ≈ 25–30% (range 20–35%). This is higher than Florida’s mobile‑only household share (state ≈ 18–22%).
• Households with any fixed broadband subscription (cable, fiber, DSL): ≈ 60–68% (range 55–70%). Florida’s fixed‑broadband subscription rate is higher (state ≈ 75–82%).
• Households with no home internet subscription (no fixed broadband and no smartphone internet plans): ≈ 12–18% (range 10–25%) — notably above many Florida counties and within the higher end for rural Florida.
• Average measured mobile download speeds experienced by users (countywide median): ≈ 25–60 Mbps (highly variable by location); statewide medians are typically higher (≈ 40–100 Mbps in more urbanized Florida counties).

Demographic breakdown (how mobile usage varies by group)

• Age
  • 18–34: highest smartphone ownership and mobile data use; heavy use for social media, video streaming and job/searching.
  • 35–64: strong smartphone ownership but greater likelihood of having fixed broadband at home if income is higher; more mixed device use.
  • 65+: substantially lower smartphone ownership and app adoption than state seniors; many rely on basic cell phones or limited smartphone functionality.
• Income and poverty
  • Median household income in Hamilton County is well below the Florida median; lower‑income households are more likely to be mobile‑only and less likely to afford fixed broadband plans or high‑data mobile plans.
  • Poverty rate is higher than state average; this correlates to greater reliance on prepaid plans and public Wi‑Fi.
• Race and ethnicity
  • The county’s Black and Hispanic populations show mobile usage patterns similar to national trends for those groups in rural low‑income areas: comparatively high mobile reliance but, in many cases, lower fixed broadband adoption.
• Education
  • Adults without college degrees are more likely to be mobile‑only; countywide educational attainment is lower than Florida’s average, which correlates with lower rates of fixed subscription and advanced app/service use.

Digital infrastructure points

• Mobile network coverage: Major national carriers provide 4G LTE coverage across populated places (town of Jasper and larger corridors), but coverage thins in rural and agricultural zones; 5G coverage is limited and concentrated in small population centers.
• Fixed broadband availability: Cable and DSL exist in town centers; fiber optic deployments are limited and do not yet reach most rural addresses. Satellite internet is available as an alternative in the most remote locations but has higher cost and latency.
• Public Wi‑Fi access: Public access points (county library, municipal buildings, some community centers and schools) provide critical access for residents without home internet; these access locations are concentrated in Jasper and a few other nodes.
• Infrastructure constraints: lower cell‑tower density, fewer fiber backhaul routes, and longer distances between network nodes increase costs for providers to expand services, leading to persistent coverage and speed gaps relative to urban Florida counties.
• Affordability programs: Lifeline, FCC emergency programs, and some state/local subsidies are used but do not fully close the adoption gap.

Trends that differ from state-level patterns

• Greater mobile‑only reliance: Hamilton County shows a substantially higher share of households that depend primarily or exclusively on mobile broadband than the Florida average, reflecting lower fixed‑broadband availability and lower household incomes.
• Lower smartphone penetration among older adults: Seniors in Hamilton County are less likely to own or use smartphones compared with Florida seniors overall, constraining adoption of telehealth and digital government services that assume smartphone access.
• Slower transition to modern fixed infrastructure: Fiber and multi‑gigabit services are much less available than in many Florida counties; as a result, residents rely more on mobile LTE and satellite, which affects throughput, latency and the ability to support remote work/education.
• More pronounced digital equity gaps: Income, age and educational disparities have a stronger correlation with lack of broadband and limited mobile data plans in Hamilton County than statewide averages, producing larger segments of the population vulnerable to exclusion from basic online services.

Key implications and insights

• Mobile connectivity is essential but not sufficient: High mobile reliance helps preserve basic connectivity (messaging, social, limited browsing) but does not fully substitute for fixed broadband needed for telehealth, distance learning, and many work‑from‑home jobs.
• Targeted interventions will be most effective: Priorities that would narrow the gap relative to Florida include targeted fiber deployments to town hubs, expanded subsidized fixed broadband offerings for low‑income households, monetized incentives for carriers to add tower/backhaul capacity in rural corridors, and expanded digital literacy and device programs for seniors.
• Measured improvements are achievable: Increasing fixed‑broadband subscription rates from the current county estimate (~60–68%) toward the state average would reduce mobile‑only dependence, improve average speeds and lower per‑GB costs for residents.

This summary uses county‑level demographic and broadband patterns (American Community Survey, Pew Research broadband/smartphone trend patterns, FCC/industry coverage characteristics) as the basis for the estimates and comparative insights.

Hamilton County, FL — short social media breakdown (estimates)

Summary

• County population (2020 Census): 14,004. Estimated population mid-2024 ~14,000. Estimated residents age 13+ ≈ 12,200.
• Estimated social media users (13+): ~8,200–9,000 people (≈60–66% of total population; ≈67–74% of residents 13+). Figures modeled from U.S. Census age structure and national/platform adoption adjusted for rural Florida usage patterns.

User counts and penetration

• Total social media users: ≈8,500 (midpoint estimate).
• Penetration: ≈61% of total population; ≈70% of residents age 13+.
• Mobile-first access is the norm; a meaningful minority rely on limited connectivity or public Wi‑Fi.

Age-group breakdown of social media users (percent of local social audience; approximate counts)

• 13–17: 8% (~680 users)
• 18–24: 12% (~1,020)
• 25–34: 18% (~1,530)
• 35–44: 20% (~1,700)
• 45–54: 18% (~1,530)
• 55–64: 14% (~1,190)
• 65+: 10% (~850)

Gender breakdown (among local social media users)

• Female: 52% (4,420 users)
• Male: 48% (4,080 users)
• Platform-level gender skews: Facebook and Pinterest lean female; YouTube and X (Twitter) skew male; Instagram and TikTok are near parity but younger cohorts skew female.

Most-used platforms (percent of local social media users; approximate)

• YouTube (video consumption/watch): 78–82% of users — dominant for news, how-tos, entertainment.
• Facebook (community pages, groups, news): 65–70% — primary hub for local information, events, Marketplace.
• Instagram (visual content, younger adults): 30–36% — stronger among 18–34.
• TikTok (short-form video): 15–20% — concentrated in 13–24 and rising but lower than metro areas.
• Snapchat: 18–22% — youth-oriented (13–24).
• X / Twitter: 10–14% — smaller, used for real-time info and some local civic discussion.
• LinkedIn: ~8–10% — professional use, job posts.
• Pinterest: ~15–18% — hobby/consumer interest, more female-skewed.

Behavioral trends and local insights

• Local-news and community groups dominate engagement: neighborhood and county Facebook groups, school pages, church pages and local business pages drive most interactions and organic reach.
• Marketplace and classifieds activity is high: Facebook Marketplace and buy/sell/trade posts are common and often outperform formal local classified channels.
• Information-seeking > influencer consumption: residents primarily use platforms for local updates, job listings, school and government notices, and buying/selling rather than following national influencers.
• Mobile and off-peak usage: peak activity in early evening (6–9 pm); many users access on lower-bandwidth mobile connections — short videos and images perform better than long-form links.
• Age-driven platform split: older adults (35+) concentrate on Facebook and YouTube; younger residents (13–34) use Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube more — but the local younger population is smaller than in urban counties, so reach on TikTok/Instagram is limited compared with Facebook.
• Trust and virality: local posts (photos of events, school sports, lost/found) get rapid engagement and shares; misinformation spreads via community groups when not moderated.
• Advertising and outreach notes: targeted Facebook ads plus boosted event posts and Marketplace listings deliver the best local reach and cost effectiveness; video content on YouTube/short clips on Facebook/Instagram improve awareness for county services and local small businesses.

Sources and method (summary)

• Estimates derived from U.S. Census population/age data and national/platform adoption rates (Pew Research Center and platform reports through 2023–2024), adjusted for rural-county internet availability and observed Florida rural usage patterns to produce county-level approximations.