Camas County

Do you want figures from the 2020 Decennial Census (official counts) or the latest American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2018–2022; more detail but with sampling error)? I can deliver concise stats for population, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and households as soon as you choose.

Camas County, ID email usage (estimates)

• Context: Population ~1,100–1,200 across ~1,079 sq mi (≈1 person/sq mi). Most residents live in/around Fairfield; vast rural areas have patchy cellular coverage and limited wired options outside town centers.
• Estimated email users: 800–900 residents use email at least monthly (roughly 70–80% of all residents; about 85–90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users (approx):
  • 18–29: 12–15%
  • 30–49: 35–40%
  • 50–64: 25–30%
  • 65+: 15–20% (lower adoption than younger groups but rising with smartphones)
• Gender split: ~52% male, 48% female, roughly mirroring county demographics; adoption rates are similar by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband availability and adoption likely trail state/national averages; many households are smartphone-only or use fixed wireless/satellite outside Fairfield.
  • Gradual improvements from incremental fixed-wireless and potential fiber upgrades near population centers; coverage remains sparse in outlying ranching/recreation areas.
  • Reliability constraints (terrain, weather, long loops) can affect consistent email access.
  • Public access/assistance often via the library, school, and county facilities.

Notes: Figures are modeled from rural Idaho and national adoption patterns applied to Camas County’s small, dispersed population; exact counts vary with infrastructure buildouts and migration.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Camas County, Idaho (focus on what differs from the Idaho statewide picture)

Overall penetration and user estimates

• Population base: roughly 1,100–1,300 year‑round residents. Seasonal workforce and visitors (skiing at Soldier Mountain, hunting/camping along US‑20) can raise the active device count notably on weekends and in peak seasons.
• Mobile users: approximately 850–1,100 residents use a mobile phone of any kind. This reflects a slightly lower overall penetration than Idaho’s urban counties due to age structure and coverage gaps.
• Smartphones: about 650–900 smartphone users, with a higher share of basic/feature phones than the state average (ranching and older residents keep flip/rugged devices in service longer).
• Lines per user and replacement cycles: fewer secondary lines and slower device upgrade cycles than in metro Idaho; ruggedized and mid‑tier Androids are common.

Demographic patterns shaping usage

• Older age profile: Camas County has a meaningfully higher share of residents 65+ than the Idaho average. That translates to more voice‑centric use, more basic phones, and lower app adoption compared with Boise‑Nampa, Idaho Falls, or Kootenai County.
• Language/seasonality: a modest Hispanic/Latino workforce presence during agricultural and construction seasons increases prepaid activations and shared‑device usage temporarily—patterns that are less visible at the state level.
• Income and occupations: with incomes below metro averages and work centered in agriculture, trades, and outdoor recreation, cost sensitivity is high. Prepaid and MVNO plans are used more heavily than in urban Idaho.

Usage behavior and traffic patterns

• Voice and messaging remain prominent, especially outside Fairfield and along ranching routes. Data usage per line is lower than in Idaho’s metros, but peaks occur on ski weekends and summer holiday travel.
• Wi‑Fi offload is critical: homes with Starlink, fixed wireless, or DSL/fiber (where available) offload most video and app updates; public Wi‑Fi at the library/school is more consequential to everyday use than in cities.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what stands out locally)

• Macro coverage footprint: Reliable LTE tends to track the US‑20 corridor and the town of Fairfield. Coverage drops quickly in canyons, on the prairie edges, and in backcountry near Soldier Mountain—yielding larger “dead zones” than the Idaho norm.
• 5G availability: Limited and largely along the highway/town sites, often DSS overlays rather than capacity 5G. In contrast, Idaho’s population centers have broad 5G coverage and much higher median speeds.
• Carrier mix: Residents lean toward carriers with stronger rural macro footprints (typically Verizon and AT&T or their MVNOs). T‑Mobile can be usable in town/along US‑20 but is spottier off‑corridor relative to its urban Idaho performance.
• Capacity constraints: A small number of macro sites handle the whole county. Seasonal surges (ski events, holiday travel) can congest sectors—an effect less visible in Idaho’s multi‑site metro grids.
• Backhaul and redundancy: Fewer fiber routes and longer microwave/backhaul spans mean more vulnerability to single‑point outages and weather‑related degradation than in cities.
• Public safety: Rural topography increases reliance on land‑mobile radio and careful tower siting. Text‑to‑911 is available in many Idaho jurisdictions; users should confirm availability with Camas County’s dispatch before relying on it.
• Complementary broadband: Higher Starlink and fixed‑wireless adoption than the state average on a per‑household basis. This improves home connectivity but does not eliminate road‑corridor mobile gaps.
• New investment: Most near‑term upgrades are likely to be fiber/backhaul and selective rural macro infill supported by state/federal broadband funds, rather than dense small‑cell/5G deployments typical of Idaho’s metros.

How Camas County differs from Idaho overall

• Coverage quality varies more sharply with terrain and distance from US‑20; dead zones are more common.
• Lower smartphone and 5G adoption rates, with more basic/rugged devices in use and longer device lifecycles.
• Heavier reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and Wi‑Fi offload; higher household use of satellite/fixed‑wireless for data.
• Traffic is more seasonal, with noticeable weekend/holiday congestion at a few sectors rather than steady high loads across many sites.
• Investment priority is basic coverage and backhaul resiliency, not high‑capacity urban features.

Notes on estimation and where to validate

• Use current U.S. Census/ACS small‑area estimates for population and age structure.
• Compare FCC mobile coverage maps and drive‑test apps (e.g., Ookla, OpenSignal) for corridor vs. off‑corridor performance.
• Check Idaho Office of Broadband and carrier build‑outs for any new fiber/backhaul or tower permits since 2024.
• Local stakeholders (Camas County, Fairfield city, school district, EMS) can confirm public Wi‑Fi sites, emergency communications, and known dead zones.

Here’s a concise, county‑sized snapshot. Figures are modeled estimates using U.S./rural benchmarks (Pew Research 2023–2024), Idaho/rural adoption patterns, and the county’s small-population profile; use ranges to reflect uncertainty.

Overall user stats

• Population: roughly 1.1–1.3k residents
• Active social media users: about 700–900 residents (roughly 65–75% of total; includes most teens and a majority of adults)
• Adult adoption by age: under 50s ~70–85%; 65+ ~40–55%

Age mix of social users (share of users)

• 13–17: 8–10% (very high use; creators/consumers)
• 18–29: 18–22% (heavy daily use; video/messaging first)
• 30–44: 22–26% (family, school, local groups, Marketplace)
• 45–64: 28–32% (news, groups, community updates)
• 65+: 15–20% (lighter, mostly Facebook/YouTube)

Gender breakdown of social users

• Female: 48–52% (over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest)
• Male: 48–52% (over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X)
• Net usage rate is similar by gender; platform mix differs

Most-used platforms in Camas County (share of residents 13+; overlaps expected)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–65%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (concentrated under 30)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (women 25–54)
• X/Twitter: 10–15%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• WhatsApp: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited presence in very small markets)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups drive most local interaction (county/school/sheriff updates, road conditions, buy–sell, lost-and-found). Marketplace is heavily used for vehicles, ranch/farm gear, and seasonal items.
• Event-driven spikes: Engagement jumps around weather/road incidents, school sports, summer fairs/rodeos, and the ski season (visual content on Instagram/TikTok; updates on Facebook).
• Information utility over entertainment for 30+: local news, emergency/wildfire and hunting updates, closures; sharing/resharing > original posting.
• Messaging centric: Family, team, and church coordination via Messenger and Snapchat; many “read more than post.”
• Peak times: Early mornings (6–8 a.m.), lunch (12–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekday daytime use dips during farm/ranch work.
• Connectivity constraints: Patchy broadband/cell outside town centers reduces live streaming; short video and static posts perform better; evening home Wi‑Fi boosts use.
• Geographic spillover: Residents follow nearby counties (Blaine/Sun Valley, Gooding, Elmore, Twin Falls); effective targeting often uses a 25–60 mile radius around Fairfield and main travel corridors.
• Trust dynamics: High engagement with verified local sources (schools, sheriff, county, state transport); skepticism toward anonymous/national-politics accounts.

Note on methodology: County-level social platform data aren’t directly published at this granularity. These are modeled, local-adjusted estimates from national/platform benchmarks and rural usage patterns; for plans or ad budgets, validate with page insights, platform audience tools, and geotagged engagement around Fairfield/Soldier Mountain.