Caribou County

Here are the key demographics for Caribou County, Idaho. Figures are rounded; primary sources are the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 Population Estimates and 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5‑year data.

• Population size

  • Total population (2023 estimate): ~7.2–7.3K
  • 2020 Census: ~7.0K

• Age

  • Median age: mid‑30s
  • Under 18: ~30%
  • 65 and over: ~15%

• Gender

  • Female: ~49–50%
  • Male: ~50–51%

• Race and ethnicity

  • White alone: ~94–96%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1–2%
  • Asian: <1%
  • Black or African American: <1%
  • Two or more races: ~2–3%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~7–8%
  • White alone, not Hispanic: ~88–90%

• Households (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Number of households: ~2,500–2,600
  • Average household size: ~2.8
  • Family households: ~70–75% of all households
  • Households with children under 18: ~35–40%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates (2023) and American Community Survey 5‑year estimates (2018–2022); QuickFacts: Caribou County, Idaho.

Here’s a best-available estimate for Caribou County, Idaho:

• Estimated email users: ~5,200–5,600 residents (about 75–80% of the ~7,000–7,200 population), based on national email adoption applied to local age mix.
• Age distribution of email users (approx. share of all users):
  • Under 18: 14–17% (many teens use email; younger children less so)
  • 18–34: 24–27%
  • 35–64: 42–46% (largest block)
  • 65+: 14–18% (high but not universal adoption)
• Gender split: Roughly even (within 1–2 percentage points of the county’s overall male/female split; national data show minimal gender gap in email use).
• Digital access trends:
  • About 4 in 5 households have a computer and broadband subscription; 10–20% lack home broadband.
  • 12–18% of households are smartphone‑only for internet.
  • Fiber and cable are strongest in/near towns; outside town centers many rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite, with variable speeds and higher latency.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Low population density (~4 people per square mile across ~1,800 sq mi).
  • Connectivity clusters around Soda Springs and Grace; outlying ranchlands and canyoned areas show patchier coverage, affecting consistent email access.

Below is a county‑level, estimates‑driven snapshot of mobile phone usage in Caribou County, Idaho, with emphasis on how local patterns diverge from statewide trends. Figures are directional ranges based on 2020–2024 rural adoption patterns, Idaho demography, and typical carrier coverage in southeast Idaho.

Snapshot

• Population/households: ≈7,000 residents; ≈2,500–2,700 households concentrated in Soda Springs, Grace, Bancroft, and rural valleys.
• Terrain: Mountainous/ridged topography with long valleys; coverage clusters along US‑30 and town centers, with shadowed dead zones off the main corridors.

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: 4,000–4,300 (≈80–85% of ≈5,000 adults).
• Total mobile phone users (all ages, smartphones + basic phones): 4,800–5,300.
• Mobile‑only households (no landline): 60–68% of households (≈1,500–1,800). Statewide is typically higher; Caribou’s older age mix tempers wireless‑only adoption.
• Households relying on cellular (or cellular + hotspot) as primary home internet: 18–25% (≈450–650), notably above the statewide share due to patchy fixed broadband outside town centers.
• Prepaid/MVNO share of lines: 25–30% (above the state average) reflecting price sensitivity and coverage‑based selection of Verizon‑network MVNOs.

Demographic patterns (how usage skews)

• Age:
  • 13–34: Near‑universal smartphone adoption; heavy social/video use but constrained by coverage and data caps outside towns.
  • 35–64: High adoption; frequent use of Wi‑Fi calling at home/work to overcome weak indoor signal.
  • 65+: 65–75% smartphone adoption (below state average), with a meaningful minority on basic phones; more voice/SMS‑centric use.
• Income/occupation:
  • Higher prepaid and budget‑Android usage than the state average; families in agriculture, mining, and trades frequently use rugged devices and offline mapping.
  • More hotspot use for homework and remote work in households lacking cable/fiber, especially outside Soda Springs and Grace.
• Multi‑line behavior:
  • Above‑average incidence of keeping a “coverage anchor” line (often Verizon or a Verizon MVNO) plus a low‑cost secondary plan for data.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers and coverage:
  • Verizon: Most reliable geographic coverage, especially along US‑30 and in Soda Springs/Grace; 4G LTE widely available; low‑band 5G present but uneven in valleys.
  • AT&T: Good along primary corridors and in town cores; more gaps off‑corridor.
  • T‑Mobile: Improving low‑band 5G along highways and in towns, but more terrain‑related dead zones than Verizon; performance drops in outlying canyons.
• 5G reality:
  • Predominantly low‑band 5G with LTE‑like speeds; mid‑band 5G capacity is limited compared with Idaho’s metros (Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello). No mmWave.
• Tower density and backhaul:
  • Sparse macro‑site grid with terrain shadowing; coverage prioritized along US‑30 and near population centers. Fiber backhaul is present in towns but less consistent rurally, which can cap cell‑site capacity.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable/fiber mainly in Soda Springs and select blocks of Grace; DSL/WISPs and satellite elsewhere. This drives higher‑than‑average reliance on cellular hotspots and Starlink in rural tracts.
• Workarounds:
  • Heavy use of Wi‑Fi calling indoors; residents report switching carriers or devices to match micro‑coverage patterns by valley.

How Caribou County differs from Idaho overall

• Coverage dependency: Stronger reliance on Verizon (or Verizon‑based MVNOs) for reach; T‑Mobile adoption grows more slowly than statewide due to terrain gaps.
• 5G adoption/experience: Slower uptake and smaller performance gains than in state metros; many users see 5G as marginally better than LTE.
• Mobile as home internet: Higher share of households using cellular hotspots or phone tethering for primary internet than the state average.
• Prepaid mix: Larger prepaid/MVNO presence due to price sensitivity and the ability to choose network coverage per valley/town.
• Wireless‑only households: Slightly lower than statewide because an older age profile sustains some landline use; however, among younger families, wireless‑only rates resemble the state.
• Usage patterns: More emphasis on offline maps, messaging/Push‑to‑Talk, and Wi‑Fi calling; streaming/video quality varies more with location than in urban Idaho.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• Estimates reflect rural Idaho adoption norms, ACS‑based age structure, and typical carrier footprints in southeast Idaho; exact counts vary by census block and ongoing network builds.
• For planning, validate at the census‑tract level with the latest FCC Broadband Map, carrier coverage tools, and a local drive‑test along US‑30 and major county roads.

Here’s a concise, planning-grade snapshot of social media use in Caribou County, Idaho. Because platform vendors don’t publish county-level figures, the numbers below are estimates based on Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. platform usage, rural-versus-urban patterns, and a local baseline of roughly 7,000 residents (~5,000 adults).

Overall user stats

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~70–75% of adults (about 3,500–3,800 people)
• Teen usage (13–17): very high (≈90%+ use at least one platform regularly), concentrated on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram

Most-used platforms among adults (monthly use; estimates)

• YouTube: ~65–70% of adults (about 3,200–3,500)
• Facebook: ~60–65% (about 3,000–3,250)
• Instagram: ~30–35% (about 1,500–1,750)
• TikTok: ~25–30% (about 1,250–1,500)
• Pinterest: ~25–30% (about 1,250–1,500; strong female skew)
• Snapchat: ~18–25% (about 900–1,250; much higher in teens/early 20s)
• WhatsApp: ~10–12% (about 500–600)
• X (Twitter): ~10–15% (about 500–750)
• Reddit: ~10–12% (about 500–600)
• LinkedIn: ~8–12% (about 400–600)
• Nextdoor: <5% (coverage limited)

Age-group patterns (share within each age bracket using the platform)

• Teens (13–17): Snapchat 75–85%; TikTok 70–80%; Instagram 65–75%; YouTube ~95%; Facebook ~30–40% (mostly for events/teams)
• 18–29: YouTube 90%+; Instagram 70–80%; Snapchat 65–75%; TikTok 55–65%; Facebook 50–60%
• 30–49: Facebook 70–80%; YouTube 85–90%; Instagram 40–55%; TikTok 25–35%; Pinterest 35–45%; Snapchat 20–30%
• 50–64: Facebook 65–75%; YouTube 65–75%; Instagram 20–30%; TikTok 15–25%; Pinterest 30–40%
• 65+: Facebook 45–55%; YouTube 50–60%; Instagram 10–15%; TikTok 8–12%

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Overall users are roughly even male/female.
• Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest skew female (Facebook users ~55–60% women; Pinterest ~75–80% women).
• YouTube, Reddit, X skew male (YouTube ~55% men; Reddit ~70% men; X ~60% men).
• TikTok and Snapchat lean slightly female.

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: school updates, local government and emergency notices, church and civic groups, youth sports, buy/sell/garage-sale groups, and Marketplace (farm/ranch equipment, vehicles, furnishings).
• YouTube is utility-first: how‑to and repair, ag and ranch content, outdoor/hunting/fishing, product research; used across ages.
• Short video is rising: TikTok and Instagram Reels consumption is growing; many creators cross-post to Reels for broader reach among Facebook/IG users.
• Teens and young adults live in DMs: Snapchat for day-to-day communication and group chats; Instagram DMs and Facebook Messenger for teams, clubs, and events.
• Trust is local: high reliance on word-of-mouth and Facebook Groups for recommendations; official county/city/school pages help with rumor control during storms, closures, wildfires.
• Seasonality: engagement spikes around weather events, school sports seasons, hunting/fishing seasons, and local festivals.
• Ads and outreach: boosted Facebook posts reliably drive foot traffic, hiring leads (e.g., industrial, trades, services), and event attendance; geotargeting a 15–30 mile radius works well.
• Connectivity reality: some pockets have modest broadband; mobile-first content (short video, vertical formats, concise captions) performs best; long livestreams have mixed completion rates.

Notes and confidence

• Figures are estimates (not vendor-reported counts) calibrated to rural U.S./Idaho patterns; use for strategy and sizing, not for compliance reporting.