Boise County

Do you have a preferred source/year (e.g., 2020 Census vs. ACS 2018–2022 5-year vs. 2023 Population Estimates)? For a small county like Boise County, ACS 5-year is the most reliable for age/sex/race/household details. I can provide a concise snapshot once you confirm the reference.

Boise County, Idaho (pop. 9,000) is rural and mountainous (5 people/sq. mile), which shapes digital access and email use.

Estimated email users

• 6,800–7,600 residents likely use email (roughly 75–85% of those age 13+), based on rural Idaho and U.S. adoption benchmarks.

Age distribution of email use (approx.)

• 18–34: 95–99% use email.
• 35–64: 90–95%.
• 65+: 70–80% (lower where home broadband is limited).

Gender split

• Roughly even; no strong male/female differences in email adoption observed in comparable rural areas.

Digital access trends

• Home broadband adoption is moderate for Idaho; expect ~70–80% of households with an internet subscription, with gigabit mostly in town centers.
• Fixed wireless and satellite (e.g., Starlink) fill gaps; 15–25% of households are smartphone‑only or primarily mobile for internet.
• Work/commute ties to the Boise metro drive weekday email usage among working adults.

Local connectivity/density notes

• Connectivity clusters along ID‑21 (Idaho City corridor) and ID‑55 (Horseshoe Bend), with patchy service in canyons and backcountry (Garden Valley/Warm Springs areas).
• Low density and rugged terrain increase last‑mile costs; ongoing fiber/fixed‑wireless expansions are improving reliability but coverage remains uneven.

Estimates derived from Census population and rural email/broadband benchmarks.

Boise County, ID: Mobile phone usage summary (with emphasis on how it differs from Idaho overall)

User estimates

• Resident base: ~7–9K people, skewing older than the Idaho average. Adult residents: roughly 5.5–7K.
• Active mobile users: approximately 5–6.5K resident users on any given week (plus pronounced seasonal inflows of visitors along SH‑55 and SH‑21 that can double traffic on peak weekends).
• Device mix (directional, based on rural market patterns and local terrain constraints):
  • Smartphones: roughly 80–85% of users (a few points lower than Idaho statewide).
  • Basic/flip phones and rugged handsets: 10–15% (higher than statewide).
  • Dual-carrier/dual-SIM or a second line for coverage redundancy: 8–12% (higher than statewide).
  • Mobile hotspots and fixed‑wireless routers used as primary home internet: materially higher share than statewide.
• Carrier skew (directional): Verizon tends to have the strongest rural footprint; AT&T is second; T‑Mobile is patchier away from main corridors. Market share likely tilts more heavily to Verizon/AT&T than the Idaho average.

Demographic usage patterns (vs Idaho overall)

• Age: Older median age than the state. This correlates with:
  • Slightly lower smartphone adoption and app intensity.
  • Higher retention of basic phones among 65+ and among residents in remote or off‑grid homes (battery life, durability, simpler charging).
• Work/commute: A notable commuter group to Ada County/Boi­se metro; these users carry high‑end smartphones but depend on Wi‑Fi calling or boosters at home, creating a bimodal pattern (urban-grade use by day, rural-adapted use by night).
• Income/household type: More single‑family, dispersed households and vacation/second homes. This raises:
  • Reliance on signal boosters, external antennas, and Wi‑Fi calling to overcome weak indoor coverage.
  • Use of prepaid or MVNO lines for secondary/seasonal devices.
• Recreation/backcountry: Higher-than-average adoption of satellite messengers (e.g., inReach) and growing awareness/usage of smartphone satellite SOS features due to dead zones in canyons and forested areas—distinct from the state average.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what’s different locally)

• Terrain-driven coverage gaps: Steep canyons and forested ridgelines create persistent dead zones off the main corridors. Compared with Idaho overall, Boise County has:
  • More areas with no service or 1–2 bars of LTE only.
  • Heavier reliance on LTE for both voice and data; 5G coverage is limited primarily to segments along SH‑55 (Horseshoe Bend area) and parts of SH‑21 near larger towns. Outside those, 5G is spotty or absent.
• Corridors with service: Better, but still variable, coverage along:
  • SH‑55 (Horseshoe Bend corridor) and SH‑21 (Idaho City → Lowman), Garden Valley/Crouch. Signal drop‑offs are common just a few miles off these routes.
• Backhaul and tower siting: A small number of macro sites with microwave or limited fiber backhaul serve large areas. Compared to the state average:
  • Fewer sites per square mile and slower 5G roll‑out.
  • Congestion spikes on summer weekends (rafting, camping) and during wildfire incidents; capacity is engineered more for baseline rural loads than for peaks.
• Home internet interplay:
  • Fixed wireless (WISPs), LTE/5G home internet, and Starlink see higher uptake than statewide due to limited cable/fiber availability in many communities. This, in turn, increases Wi‑Fi calling usage indoors.
  • Legacy copper/DSL exists in some pockets but is often slow or distance‑limited; some households keep a landline or VoIP for reliability, especially where cellular is marginal.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • Wildfire season drives temporary cell-on-wheels deployments and priority services; residents are more likely to keep battery backups, generators, and analog alternatives than the state average.
  • E-911 and location accuracy can be challenged in narrow canyons; users are more likely to be advised to enable Wi‑Fi calling and download offline maps.

Trends that diverge from Idaho statewide

• Adoption is more utility‑driven than feature‑driven: A higher share of users prioritize reliable voice/text and battery life over cutting‑edge 5G features.
• Slower 5G migration: Many residents remain on LTE plans and devices; 5G handset ownership lags the state average, and effective 5G speeds are limited to a few nodes near highways/towns.
• Higher dependence on network workarounds:
  • Wi‑Fi calling, signal boosters, external antennas.
  • Redundant carriers within households.
  • Satellite messaging for backcountry travel.
• Seasonal traffic volatility: Network performance varies more dramatically by season and weekend than the state average, with congestion along SH‑55/SH‑21 and recreation hubs.
• Coverage inequality within short distances: Within a few miles, service can swing from usable LTE to no‑service—more pronounced than in most Idaho counties with flatter terrain.

Implications for planners and providers

• Targeted infill (small cells or repeaters) along SH‑55/SH‑21 and in Garden Valley/Idaho City would yield outsized benefits.
• Prioritize fiber/microwave backhaul upgrades to existing macro sites to relieve peak congestion.
• Promote and support Wi‑Fi calling and emergency preparedness (backup power, offline maps, satellite SOS awareness).
• Consider community partnerships for shared infrastructure at public facilities (libraries, schools, fire stations) to improve indoor coverage and public Wi‑Fi.

Note on uncertainty

• Figures above are directional estimates synthesized from rural market patterns, Boise County’s terrain/settlement, and known corridor coverage. For programmatic use, validate with current carrier coverage maps, FCC BDC filings, and the latest ACS/PUC data.

Boise County, ID – social media snapshot (estimates)

User stats

• Population: ~9,000 residents (small, rural, older-leaning).
• Estimated monthly social media users: 5,800–6,700 (about 65–75% of residents; roughly 80%+ of adults).
• Typical daily use among users mirrors national patterns: Facebook ~70% visit daily, Instagram ~60%, Snapchat ~65%, TikTok ~50%, YouTube ~55%.

Age mix of social users (share of local social users)

• 13–17: 5%
• 18–24: 10%
• 25–34: 15%
• 35–44: 18%
• 45–54: 18%
• 55–64: 18%
• 65+: 16%

Gender breakdown (overall, among social users)

• Male: 52–55%
• Female: 45–48%
• Nonbinary/other: <2% Platform skews follow national patterns: Pinterest skews female; Reddit and X (Twitter) skew male; TikTok/Snapchat lean slightly female; Facebook is broadly balanced but older.

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults using monthly; rounded)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• Pinterest: 30–35%
• TikTok: 25–30%
• Snapchat: 20–25%
• LinkedIn: 15–20%
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• Reddit: 12–18%
• WhatsApp: 10–15%
• Nextdoor: 8–12%

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: local groups for road conditions, wildfire updates, school/sheriff notices, and buy–sell–trade dominate. Marketplace usage is high.
• Mobile-first, bandwidth-conscious: spotty coverage in parts of the county favors short videos, photos, and concise text; large/HD video underperforms.
• Timing: engagement peaks evenings (7–9 pm), lunch hour (12–1 pm), and weekend mornings.
• Seasonal content surges: late spring–early fall for outdoor recreation (camping, river, ATV, hiking); winter for snow/road and emergency info.
• Trust and locality matter: posts from known local businesses, civic orgs, and neighbors (tagged locations, real photos) outperform polished “corporate” creatives.
• Younger users (teens/20s) concentrate on Snapchat and TikTok; they prefer Stories/DMs over public posts. Instagram is the bridge to 25–40.
• Cross-county following: many residents commute or shop in the Boise metro; they follow Ada County pages and Boise-area influencers, so regional targeting often outperforms strict county-only targeting.

Notes on method: Figures are best-fit estimates derived from national Pew Research platform usage rates and rural Idaho ad-reach benchmarks, adjusted to Boise County’s small, older population profile. Use as planning guidance, not a census.