Custer County

Here are recent, high-level demographics for Custer County, Idaho (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates; figures rounded):

• Population
  • Total: about 4.6k (2023 estimate)
• Age
  • Median age: ~50 years
  • Under 5: ~4%
  • Under 18: ~20–21%
  • 65 and over: ~25–27%
• Sex
  • Male: ~52%
  • Female: ~48%
• Race/ethnicity (alone or in combination; Hispanic can be any race)
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~86–88%
  • Hispanic/Latino: ~8–10%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1–2%
  • Two or more races: ~2–3%
  • Other groups (each): <1%
• Households and housing
  • Households: ~2.0k
  • Persons per household: ~2.2
  • Family households: ~60–65% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78–80%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2023) and American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

Custer County, ID email usage (estimates)

• Population: ~4.3–4.7k spread over ~4,900 sq mi (≈0.9 people per sq mi) — extremely low density, mountainous.
• Estimated email users: ~3.1–3.4k residents (assuming ~90% adult email adoption and an older-skewing population).
• Age distribution of users: skewed older. Roughly 18–34: ~20%; 35–54: ~30%; 55–64: ~20%; 65+: ~30%.
• Gender split: roughly even among users; a slight male tilt is typical for the county.
• Digital access trends: about 65–75% of households likely have a broadband subscription; 10–15% are mobile-only internet users. Outside town centers (Challis, Mackay, Stanley), many rely on fixed wireless or satellite; wired fiber/cable is concentrated along US-93 and ID-21 corridors. Smartphone-based email use continues to rise; legacy DSL and satellite remain common in remote ranching and recreation areas.
• Connectivity context: Rugged terrain (Salmon–Challis National Forest, Sawtooth region) and sparse settlement drive high last-mile costs, leading to patchy speeds and occasional outages. Public libraries and schools are key access points. Email usage is broadly high but constrained by coverage and affordability in the most remote areas.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Custer County, Idaho (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)

Overall user estimates (adults, 2023–2024)

• Population baseline: roughly 4,500–4,800 residents; about 3,600–3,900 are adults.
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): approximately 3,200–3,500 adults (about 88–92% of adults). This is a few points lower than Idaho’s urbanized counties, mainly due to age mix and terrain-related service gaps.
• Smartphone users: roughly 2,700–3,100 adults (about 75–82% of adults). This trails Idaho’s statewide rate (commonly low-to-mid 80s) because Custer County has a much older population share and more persistent coverage gaps that make basic phones more common.
• Mobile-only internet reliance: Meaningfully higher outside town centers than the state average, as some households and small businesses use hotspots because wired options thin out quickly beyond the main corridors. Within town limits, reliance is closer to state norms.

Demographic breakdown (and how it shapes usage)

• Age structure is the main differentiator from Idaho overall:
  • 65+ share: about 27–30% in Custer vs roughly 16–18% statewide. Among seniors, smartphone adoption is materially lower (about 55–65%) and basic/feature phones remain in use. This pulls down the county’s overall smartphone rate.
  • Working-age 35–64: similar share to statewide, with high smartphone adoption (≈85–90%) but more conservative data use in fringe coverage areas.
  • 18–34: smaller share than the state; adoption near-universal when coverage is available, but out-migration of young adults keeps this cohort relatively small compared with Idaho’s growth centers.
• Income and housing:
  • Median household income is below the Idaho median; this shows up as higher prevalence of prepaid plans and longer device replacement cycles than in Boise–Meridian or Idaho Falls.
  • Seasonal and second-home population (especially around Stanley) drives sharp summer peaks in device counts and data demand—an effect much stronger than statewide averages.
• Language/ethnicity:
  • Hispanic/Latino share is smaller than Idaho’s average. Where present, adoption is similar to statewide peers, but some workers in remote areas rely on hotspots due to employer-provided housing lacking wired service.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (distinct from state-level)

• Terrain-constrained coverage: According to recent FCC carrier maps (2023–2024), reliable LTE/5G coverage is concentrated along US‑93 and ID‑75 and in/near towns (e.g., Challis, Stanley, Mackay area). Large dead zones persist in the Salmon–Challis National Forest, Pahsimeroi Valley, and Copper Basin. Idaho’s major metros, by contrast, have near-contiguous coverage.
• Carrier mix and performance:
  • Verizon typically offers the broadest rural footprint; AT&T and T‑Mobile coverage improves along main corridors but falls off faster off‑highway. Users often keep devices or plans chosen for roaming resilience rather than price/features—a stronger effect than in cities.
  • 5G is mostly low‑band along corridors; mid‑band capacity that’s common in Boise/Nampa/Idaho Falls is scarce or absent here. As a result, average mobile data speeds are lower and more variable than the state’s urban averages.
• Tower density and backhaul:
  • Site density is low, and mountains shadow many valleys. Outside towns, single‑site dependence is common; maintenance or power issues can remove coverage entirely for pockets—less common in Idaho’s population centers.
  • Fiber backhaul reaches town centers (served by regional providers and a local telco cooperative), but many remote cell sites rely on long backhaul paths or microwave, limiting capacity compared with the state’s urban fibered grids.
• Seasonal congestion and resilience:
  • Summer tourism (Stanley/Sawtooths, river corridors, trailheads) can push cells to capacity on weekends and during events—capacity spikes that are more pronounced than statewide norms.
  • Winter storms and wildfire seasons can cause extended commercial-power outages; not all rural sites have long-duration backup, so service interruptions are more likely than in most of Idaho.

How Custer County’s usage differs from Idaho overall

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration, driven chiefly by an older population and more persistent no‑signal areas.
• Higher reliance on prepaid/basic phones among seniors and remote residents; more conservative data use.
• Higher share of households relying on mobile hotspots as a primary connection outside town centers due to thin wired options.
• Greater seasonal swings: device counts and data demand surge in summer tourism zones, leading to congestion that’s uncommon in most Idaho counties.
• Slower and less consistent 5G experience (low‑band only in most places), while Idaho’s metros benefit from denser sites and mid‑band 5G capacity.

Notes on method

• Estimates triangulate U.S. Census/ACS population and age mix, Pew Research smartphone adoption by age/rurality, and FCC mobile coverage maps (2023–2024). Because few sources publish county‑level smartphone rates, ranges are provided and should be refined with local survey data, carrier performance stats, or crowd‑sourced coverage measurements.

Below is a concise, best‑estimate snapshot for Custer County, ID. True county‑level surveys are scarce, so figures use Pew Research national/rural social media norms (2023–2024) adjusted for Custer County’s rural, older age profile. Treat percentages as directional ranges.

At‑a‑glance user stats (modeled)

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~65–75% of adults
• Mobile‑first usage is common; home broadband is patchier than urban Idaho, so short‑form video and Facebook are favored.

Most‑used platforms among adults (estimated share of adults)

• YouTube: ~72–78%
• Facebook: ~60–70%
• Instagram: ~25–35%
• TikTok: ~18–28%
• Pinterest: ~20–30% (higher among women)
• Snapchat: ~15–22% (skews younger)
• X/Twitter: ~10–18% (niche)
• Reddit: ~8–15% (younger/male skew)
• LinkedIn: ~8–15% (professional/management roles)
• Nextdoor: ~3–8% (limited footprint in very rural areas)

Age‑group patterns (who uses any social platform; top platforms in each)

• Teens (13–17): ~90–95% use social. Heavy on YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram; TikTok strong.
• 18–29: ~95%+. YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok lead; Facebook moderate.
• 30–49: ~85–90%. Facebook and YouTube dominant; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing.
• 50–64: ~60–70%. Facebook first, YouTube second; Instagram/TikTok lower but rising.
• 65+: ~40–55%. Facebook and YouTube primarily; limited Instagram/TikTok.

Gender notes (directional)

• Overall social media use is roughly balanced.
• More women: Pinterest (strong), Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight), Snapchat (slight).
• More men: Reddit (strong), X/Twitter (moderate). YouTube roughly even.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Idaho counties

• Facebook is the community hub: buy/sell groups, road/wildfire updates, school sports, county and sheriff announcements.
• Marketplace usage is high for vehicles, gear, ranch/farm equipment.
• Tourism/outdoors content peaks seasonally (Sawtooths/Salmon‑Challis): Instagram Reels and Facebook posts featuring hiking, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling.
• Younger residents favor Snapchat for daily communication; TikTok and Instagram for entertainment and local scenery.
• Business usage: Small businesses lean on Facebook Pages/Marketplace and Instagram for events, menus, seasonal hours; boosted posts during tourist season.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is common across ages; WhatsApp remains niche.
• Trust/attention: Hyperlocal pages and known admins drive engagement; rumors can spread quickly in community groups, so moderator presence matters.
• Posting cadence: Evenings and weekends see higher engagement; weather and road conditions drive spikes.

Method note and sources

• Method: Applied Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 platform adoption rates, with rural/older adjustments, to a small, rural county profile. Ranges reflect uncertainty at county scale.
• Sources: Pew Research Center (Social Media Use 2024; Teens, Social Media & Technology 2023; Rural/Urban differences), U.S. Census/ACS for rural Idaho age structure.