Franklin County

Franklin County, Idaho — key demographics (most recent U.S. Census/ACS)

Population

• 14,194 (2020 Census)
• ~14,800 (ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~31 years
• Under 18: ~34%
• 65 and over: ~13%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~86–88%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~9–11%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5–1%
• Asian: ~0.3–0.5%
• Black or African American: ~0.2–0.4%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.1–0.2%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• ~4,400–4,500 households
• Average household size: ~3.3
• Family households: ~79–80% (majority married-couple)
• Households with children under 18: ~45–50%
• Owner-occupied housing: ~80–85%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (DP1) and American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (DP02/DP05).

Franklin County, Idaho snapshot (estimates, 2024; based on ACS, Pew, and state broadband data)

• Population: 14–15k residents; low density (20–22 people per sq. mile).
• Estimated email users: ~11–12k (most internet users maintain at least one email account).
• Age mix of email users:
  • 13–17: ~4–6%
  • 18–34: ~27–30%
  • 35–54: ~33–38%
  • 55+: ~28–33%
• Gender split among email users: roughly even (≈49–51% female/male).

Digital access and trends

• Internet availability: ~85–90% of households have an internet subscription; fiber-to-the-home has expanded in and around town centers (e.g., Preston), with DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite filling rural gaps.
• Mobile reliance: 15–20% of households are smartphone‑only for home internet, aligned with rural Idaho norms.
• Usage patterns: Email is near-universal among adults with internet access; daily use skews higher among working-age adults, with strong adoption among 65+ growing as telehealth and e-government expand.
• Connectivity geography: Best fixed speeds cluster in populated areas; agricultural and mountainous fringes see more variability and greater reliance on fixed wireless/satellite. Public libraries and schools provide key Wi‑Fi access points.

Below is a practical, assumption-based snapshot you can use now, with clear caveats about uncertainty.

High-level takeaways versus Idaho overall

• Coverage and speeds: Franklin County has more 4G/LTE reliance and less mid‑band 5G than Idaho’s metro corridors (Boise, Idaho Falls), so typical speeds and indoor coverage are lower and less consistent.
• Provider mix: Verizon tends to be strongest; T‑Mobile has improved along primary corridors, but mid‑band 5G depth lags the state average; AT&T is patchier off the highways. Idaho overall shows more three‑carrier parity in metros.
• Mobile-only households: Slightly higher share of households relying on mobile hotspots or fixed‑wireless home internet than the statewide average, due to fewer cable options outside town centers.
• Cross‑border behavior: Daytime usage leans south into Cache Valley, UT (Logan area) for commuters; handoffs to Utah cells are more common than in most Idaho counties.
• Demographics: Larger households and a bigger youth share than the state average, which lifts the absolute number of lines per household but with tighter budgets—tilting plans toward shared family lines, MVNOs, and Android devices.

User and device estimates (transparent assumptions)

• Population base: ~15,000–16,000 residents (2023–2024 est.). Adults ≈ 72% of population.
• Adult smartphone users: 82–88% adoption in rural settings applied to ~10,800–11,500 adults → about 8,900–10,100 adult smartphone users.
• Teen users (13–17): ~1,000–1,200 teens; 90–95% have smartphones → ~900–1,100 users.
• Younger kids with phones/watches (8–12): ~300–500 with basic phones or wearables, given 30–40% access rates.
• Total human smartphone users: roughly 10,200–11,700.
• Total active mobile lines (smartphones + basic phones + hotspots/wearables): roughly 12,000–14,500, reflecting family add‑ons and work lines. This is a more conservative per‑capita line count than urban Idaho, which is inflated by IoT and secondary devices.

Demographic patterns that influence usage

• Age structure: Higher share under 18 than Idaho overall. Result: more family plans, high teen iPhone adoption but overall slightly higher Android share due to cost.
• Income and education: Modestly below state averages. Result: greater sensitivity to price; MVNOs (e.g., Visible, Cricket, Metro, US Mobile) and prepaid plans see relatively higher uptake; slower flagship device replacement cycles.
• Language and ethnicity: Predominantly non‑Hispanic White; Hispanic population present but smaller share than the Idaho average. Result: smaller, but material, need for bilingual retail support and community outreach around ACP/Lifeline alternatives now that ACP has lapsed.
• Work patterns: Commuting to Logan, UT and regional agriculture/contracting. Result: weekday daytime load shifts south; field work increases seasonal demand for rugged devices, push‑to‑talk apps, and hotspot tethering.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Macro coverage
  • Corridors with best service: US‑91 (Franklin–Preston–Dayton–Weston–Clifton), ID‑36 toward Cache Valley and toward Soda Springs, town centers (Preston especially).
  • Challenging areas: Canyons and benches (e.g., Mink Creek/Cub River areas, Oxford/Valley View backroads) with terrain‑blocked signals; indoor penetration issues in metal buildings and basements.
  • 5G: Present, but primarily low‑band (wide‑area, modest speeds). Mid‑band density and capacity are thinner than the Idaho metro average; mmWave is effectively absent.
  • FirstNet/public safety: AT&T Band 14 generally present on primary corridors; off‑corridor coverage can be inconsistent in valleys and forested areas.
• Carriers and typical performance
  • Verizon: Most consistent rural footprint; decent LTE, broad low‑band 5G; capacity can tighten at events or in peak evening hours.
  • T‑Mobile: Improved along US‑91 and into town centers; mid‑band availability is spotty compared with state metros; Band 71 helps on fringes.
  • AT&T: Solid in towns and along main roads; more drop‑offs on secondary roads; FirstNet benefits for public safety users.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Fiber: Local telcos/co‑ops have deployed FTTH in and around Preston and some nearby towns (for example, Direct Communications and similar regional providers). Outside these footprints, options thin quickly.
  • Cable: Limited outside core population centers.
  • Fixed wireless home internet: T‑Mobile and Verizon FWA are meaningful substitutes where fiber/cable aren’t available; several regional WISPs serve farms and benches.
• Public Wi‑Fi and anchor institutions: Schools, libraries, and municipal buildings provide key Wi‑Fi offload; this offload role is more pronounced than in Idaho’s metros.

Usage behaviors and plan mix (how Franklin County differs)

• Higher reliance on family plans, hotspot add‑ons, and prepaid/MVNO options than the statewide suburban/urban average.
• Slightly higher share of mobile‑only or mobile‑first households, especially outside fiber zones.
• Device mix skews somewhat more Android than Idaho’s urban centers; youth segment still leans iPhone.
• More pronounced performance variability by micro‑location (a few blocks or a bend in the road can change signal quality), whereas Idaho metros are more uniformly covered.

What these differences mean for planning

• Capacity investments that matter most locally: mid‑band 5G sectors on existing sites near schools, fairgrounds, and highway choke points; small fill‑in sites along ID‑36 and bench roads; indoor coverage solutions for civic buildings.
• Adoption levers: competitively priced family plans, aggressive trade‑ins for budget/midrange devices, MVNO presence, and FWA bundles where fiber is absent.
• Equity focus: senior digital literacy and affordable device programs; targeted Spanish‑language materials where needed; continuity options post‑ACP.

Social media usage snapshot: Franklin County, Idaho

Quick user stats

• Population: ~15,000 residents; ~12,000 are age 13+.
• Estimated social media users (age 13+): ~9,000–10,000 (about 75% ±5% of 13+ residents).
• Primary access: mobile-first; video and stories/shorts are widely consumed.

Age groups (share of local active users; estimates)

• 13–17: 12–15% (near-universal use; heavy on YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok).
• 18–24: 12–14% (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; YouTube).
• 25–34: 18–20% (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube; some TikTok).
• 35–44: 17–19% (Facebook, YouTube; Instagram secondary).
• 45–54: 14–16% (Facebook, YouTube).
• 55–64: 10–12% (Facebook, YouTube; some Pinterest).
• 65+: 10–12% (Facebook, YouTube; light but growing adopters).

Gender breakdown (active users; estimates)

• Female: 52–55% (over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest).
• Male: 45–48% (over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X).

Most-used platforms (monthly use among residents 13+; estimates)

• YouTube: 70–80% – universal “how-to,” local sports highlights, faith/family content.
• Facebook (incl. Groups/Marketplace): 60–70% – dominant for community info and buying/selling.
• Instagram: 35–45% – strongest in 18–34; family updates, local businesses.
• Snapchat: 25–35% – teens/young adults for messaging and stories.
• TikTok: 25–35% – short-form entertainment, recipes, farm/outdoors.
• Pinterest: 25–30% – women 25–54; home, crafts, meal planning.
• X (Twitter): 10–15% – sports, news, state politics.
• LinkedIn: 10–15% – small business/professionals; limited.
• Reddit: 10–15% – younger males; hobby/outdoors subs.
• WhatsApp/Nextdoor: 5–10% each – niche; Nextdoor adoption is spotty in small towns.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups and Marketplace are hubs for school sports, church events, yard sales, lost-and-found, and local alerts. Word-of-mouth in groups drives discovery more than search.
• Event spikes: Traffic jumps around high school games, county fair, holiday events, and local emergencies (weather/roads).
• Cross-border following: Many also follow Cache Valley (UT/ID) pages and Logan, UT media/businesses.
• Messaging over feeds: FB Messenger and Snapchat are primary for 1:1 and small-group coordination.
• Family-friendly tone: Positive, community-oriented, and faith/family content performs best; low tolerance for spammy or divisive messaging.
• Content formats: Short vertical video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) and photo carousels outperform links. How-to, local faces, and behind-the-scenes content get above-average engagement.
• Timing: Evenings 8–10 pm and early mornings 7–9 am local time see higher engagement; weekends good for events and Marketplace.
• Commerce: High engagement with local deals, classifieds, seasonal services (yard, snow, ag, hunting/outdoors); trust increases with visible local ties and reviews.

Notes on method

• County-level social media data are scarce; figures are estimates based on Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media usage, rural adoption patterns, and U.S. Census/ACS age structure for Franklin County. Adjustments reflect observed rural-Mountain West platform preferences (strong Facebook/YouTube, moderate Instagram/Pinterest, youth-heavy Snapchat/TikTok).