Adams County

Adams County, Idaho — key demographics (latest U.S. Census/ACS; 2019–2023 ACS 5‑year and 2023 population estimate)

• Population: ~4,700 (2023 estimate; 2020 Census: 4,379)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~50
  • Under 18: ~19%
  • 18–64: ~52%
  • 65 and over: ~29%
• Sex:
  • Female: ~49%
  • Male: ~51%
• Race/ethnicity (Hispanic can be any race):
  • White alone: ~94%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~2%
  • Asian alone: <1%
  • Black alone: <1%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0%
  • Two or more races: ~4%
  • Hispanic or Latino: ~7%
  • White alone, not Hispanic: ~88%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~2,100
  • Average persons per household: ~2.2
  • Family households: ~64% (married-couple ~54%)
  • Nonfamily households: ~36% (living alone ~31%)
  • Households with children under 18: ~22%
  • Households with someone 65+: ~41%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~80%

Adams County, ID — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Population: 4,500–4,700 residents; very rural (3–4 people per sq. mile).
• Estimated email users: ~3,300–3,900 residents (driven by high adult email adoption and local internet access).
• Age distribution of email users (reflecting an older county profile):
  • 18–34: ~18–22%
  • 35–64: ~50–56%
  • 65+: ~24–30%
• Gender split of users: roughly balanced (about 50% female / 50% male), mirroring county demographics.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household internet subscription likely around the mid-70% range (below Idaho’s urban rates); many rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite; limited fiber outside town centers (e.g., Council, New Meadows).
  • Mobile data is strongest along US‑95; coverage gaps in mountainous/forested areas create uneven reliability.
  • Low density and rugged terrain raise last‑mile costs, slowing broadband upgrades; fixed wireless providers have expanded coverage, with gradual gains in 100/20 Mbps service where backhaul exists.
  • Public/communal Wi‑Fi and mobile hotspots are important supplements for residents without reliable home broadband.

Notes: Figures synthesize recent ACS population, rural Idaho connectivity patterns, and national email adoption norms; precise, county‑specific email metrics are not published.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Adams County, Idaho

Context

• Small, very rural, mountainous county centered on Council and New Meadows with long stretches of public land and canyons. Population is low-density and older than the Idaho average. Coverage and capacity are concentrated along US‑95 and in towns.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, derived from ACS population and Pew smartphone adoption benchmarks, adjusted for rural/age mix)

• Adult mobile phone owners (any mobile): roughly 3,500–4,000.
• Smartphone users: roughly 2,800–3,300 (about 5–10 percentage points lower share than Idaho overall).
• Basic/feature phone users: roughly 400–700 adults, concentrated among seniors and residents in the most remote areas.
• Households relying on cellular as primary home internet: about 10–18% of households (notably higher than the state average), with satellite as a common fallback where cellular is weak.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns (how they differ from the state)

• Age: Share of residents 65+ is materially higher than Idaho’s average. Smartphone adoption among seniors lags the state by ~10–15 points; flip/basic phones are more common for voice/SMS, safety, and telehealth check-ins.
• Income and plans: Lower median incomes and fixed‑income retirees translate into more prepaid plans and slower device replacement cycles than statewide.
• Work and seasonality: Agriculture/forestry and outdoor recreation drive usage peaks tied to work seasons and tourism. Networks see noticeable weekend/holiday surges on the US‑95 corridor; off‑season traffic is light.
• Internet reliance: Because fixed broadband is spotty outside town centers, a higher share of residents tether or use phone hotspots. Conversely, some heavy-data activities (4K streaming, large updates) are deferred to library/school Wi‑Fi due to metered mobile plans and variable speeds.
• Language and outreach: The county is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with a small Latino community; mobile-plan and device assistance is less available locally than in Idaho’s metro areas.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage pattern: 4G LTE is the workhorse and is generally reliable in Council, New Meadows, and along highways; there are persistent dead zones in narrow valleys, forested hills, and backcountry roads. Residents commonly enable Wi‑Fi calling at home.
• 5G: Low-band 5G is present mainly along corridors and in town; mid-band 5G (for faster speeds) is limited or intermittent. This yields smaller 5G performance gains than in Boise/Nampa/Idaho Falls. No mmWave.
• Carrier dynamics: Verizon is typically the most dependable in remote spots, AT&T performs well along major routes (with FirstNet coverage for public safety), and T‑Mobile has improved on the highway but remains inconsistent off-corridor. Many households keep two carriers for redundancy—more common here than statewide.
• Capacity and backhaul: A number of sites use microwave backhaul; limited fiber to towers constrains peak speeds compared with urban Idaho. Wildfire season and power outages can degrade service over wide areas.
• Anchors and workarounds: Libraries, schools, and city facilities provide crucial Wi‑Fi. Fixed-wireless and satellite (notably Starlink) fill gaps; their presence reduces pressure on mobile networks at the edges of coverage.
• Investment outlook: State/federal funds (e.g., BEAD for fixed broadband) will mainly improve fiber to homes and community anchors. Mobile service improvements will be incremental—new macro sites or upgraded backhaul near towns and along US‑95—rather than blanket rural 5G builds.

Key ways Adams County differs from Idaho overall

• Lower smartphone adoption and 5G device penetration, driven by older age structure and spotty coverage.
• Higher shares of prepaid users, multi-carrier households, and cellular‑only (or cellular-plus-satellite) home internet.
• More pronounced coverage gaps and speed variability outside towns; residents rely more on Wi‑Fi calling and offline apps.
• Seasonal congestion spikes on corridors; otherwise lighter, voice/SMS‑heavy daily usage.
• Slower pace of network upgrades due to terrain, tower siting constraints on public land, and limited fiber backhaul.

Method notes

• Counts are estimated from recent ACS population levels for Adams County combined with national/rural smartphone adoption rates (Pew) and adjusted for the county’s older age profile and rurality. Without a countywide survey or carrier-reported subscriber totals, treat figures as planning-grade estimates rather than exact measurements.

Adams County, Idaho social media snapshot (estimates for 2025)

Context and method

• County-level social media metrics aren’t published. Figures below are estimates synthesized from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media use, rural internet adoption research, and the county’s older-skewing age profile. Treat as directional ranges.

How many users

• Adult population: roughly 3,600–3,900.
• Internet adopters (home broadband or smartphone): ~75–85%.
• Estimated adult social media users: ~2,600–3,200 (about 70–80% of adults).

Age groups (share using any social platform; usage is of adults in each band)

• 18–29: 90%+ use at least one platform (smallest adult cohort locally).
• 30–49: ~85–90%.
• 50–64: ~70–80%.
• 65+: ~45–60%.
• Net effect: total user base skews 35–64 because the county population skews older.

Gender breakdown (of adult social media users)

• Approx. 52% women, 48% men.
• Skews by platform: women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and Reddit/X.

Most-used platforms (share of adult residents; rounded ranges)

• YouTube: 65–75%.
• Facebook: 60–70%.
• Instagram: 25–35%.
• Pinterest: 20–30% (majority female).
• TikTok: 15–25% (younger adults; some cross-posted clips consumed as Facebook/IG Reels).
• Snapchat: 12–20% (mostly teens/20s).
• Reddit: 10–15%.
• X (Twitter): 10–15%.
• LinkedIn: 8–12%.
• Nextdoor: <5% (low coverage in very rural areas).

Behavioral trends

• Local-first on Facebook: community groups (buy/sell/trade, school sports, events), emergency/weather/road updates, and Messenger for coordination.
• Practical video on YouTube: DIY, equipment repair, homestead/ranching, hunting/fishing, and local business how-tos.
• Visual inspiration: Pinterest for recipes, crafts, home/outdoor projects; Instagram for local scenery and small-business promos; Reels get more reach than static posts.
• Younger cohorts: Snapchat for day-to-day messaging; TikTok/short-form for entertainment and “rural life” content, often discovered via shares on Facebook.
• News and issues: political/group activity spikes around elections and during wildfires/closures; affidavits and local notices circulate in Facebook Groups.
• Access patterns: mobile-first; peak use early morning (6–8 a.m.) and late evening (8–10 p.m.); short-form video performs well given variable rural bandwidth.
• Engagement cues: posts featuring local people/places, time-sensitive info (weather, road conditions), practical tips, and giveaways drive the highest interactions.
• Ads/organic mix: Facebook/Instagram deliver the broadest paid reach; YouTube pre-roll works for awareness; hyperlocal targeting is effective due to small, tightly knit audiences.

Source note: Estimates derived from Pew Research Center (2024) social media usage by platform, age, and community type (rural vs. urban), blended with the county’s older age structure and rural internet adoption rates.