Fulton County

Key demographics: Fulton County, Illinois

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census; 2019–2023 ACS 5-year; 2023 Population Estimates)

• Population: ~33.1k (2023 estimate)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~43
  • Under 18: ~20%
  • 65 and over: ~21%
• Gender:
  • Male: ~55%
  • Female: ~45%
• Race/ethnicity (ACS, percent of total):
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~86–88%
  • Black or African American: ~6–7%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%
  • Two or more races: ~2%
  • Asian: ~0.4%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.3%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~13.6k
  • Average household size: ~2.3
  • Family households: ~65–67% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~73–75%

Fulton County, IL snapshot

• Context: ~33k residents across ~860 sq mi ≈ 38 people/sq mi; population concentrated in Canton and Lewistown.

Email users (estimated)

• 24–26k users total (about 72–78% of residents; roughly 90–95% of adults).

Age distribution of users (share of email users)

• 13–17: ~5%
• 18–34: ~25%
• 35–54: ~35%
• 55–64: ~17%
• 65+: ~18% (adoption strong but lower than younger cohorts)

Gender split

• ~51% female, ~49% male (mirrors local population structure).

Digital access and connectivity trends

• Household broadband subscription ~80%; access strongest in towns, weaker in sparsely populated areas.
• Smartphone ownership ~85–90%; 15–20% are smartphone-only internet users who primarily check email via mobile.
• Fixed broadband: cable/DSL in town centers, expanding fiber; fixed wireless and satellite fill rural gaps.
• Mobile: countywide 4G; 5G increasingly present around larger towns/major corridors.
• Public Wi‑Fi via libraries, schools, and community sites augments access.

Notes: Figures are reasoned estimates derived from rural Illinois patterns, ACS-like subscription rates, and FCC-reported coverage trends.

Below is a planning-grade summary of mobile phone usage in Fulton County, Illinois, with estimates and contrasts to statewide patterns. Figures are synthesized from recent American Community Survey device/subscription patterns (county vs Illinois), Pew mobile adoption benchmarks, FCC broadband availability reporting, and carrier/third‑party performance datasets; treat them as ranges suitable for local planning rather than citation-ready point estimates.

At a glance (users and households)

• Population/households: ~33–34k residents; ~13–14k households.
• Adult smartphone users: 21–23k (≈80–85% of adults), 5–8 percentage points lower than Illinois overall.
• People with any mobile phone (incl. basic phones): ≈90–93% of adults.
• Households with a smartphone: 84–88% (≈11.3–12.0k households), vs ~92% statewide.
• Households using a cellular data plan at home (any cellular, whether primary or backup): ~30–36% (≈4.0–4.8k), several points higher than Illinois.
• Cellular‑only home internet (no wired/fixed subscription): ~14–18% (≈1.9–2.4k), vs ~9–12% statewide.
• Households with no home internet subscription at all: 16–20% (≈2.2–2.7k), notably above Illinois (9–11%).

Demographic patterns (how Fulton differs from the state)

• Age: A larger 65+ share depresses smartphone adoption locally (≈55–65% among seniors vs ~70%+ in Illinois). Seniors in rural townships are more likely to use voice/text only or share devices.
• Income: Below‑median incomes drive higher “mobile‑only” internet dependence. Among households under ~$35k, mobile‑only rates are materially higher than state averages (≈25–35% vs ~18–22%).
• Education: Lower bachelor’s attainment correlates with more prepaid plans and cellular‑only home access; device replacement cycles are longer than the state average.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is predominantly White; smaller Black and Latino populations mean statewide smartphone‑dependence disparities by race are less visible in county totals, but Latino households locally still show above‑average mobile‑only reliance when compared within‑county.
• Geography: Residents outside Canton/Lewistown/Farmington corridors report more frequent gaps and indoor coverage issues, shaping usage toward lower‑bandwidth activities and Wi‑Fi offload when available.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage: All three national carriers provide broad 4G/LTE in populated areas. 5G is present but less dense than state averages; mid‑band 5G tends to cluster around Canton and primary corridors, with rural areas relying on low‑band 5G or LTE.
• Performance: Typical median mobile download speeds in Fulton trail the Illinois median by roughly 20–40%, with higher latency; indoor performance is a common complaint in older buildings and low‑lying/wooded areas.
• Sites/backhaul: Fewer macro sites per square mile than the state norm; some rural sectors still rely on microwave backhaul. Ongoing fiber builds along main routes are improving backhaul resilience.
• Fixed broadband context (impacts mobile use): Cable and fiber are available in core towns; many outlying areas depend on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. This wiring gap elevates cellular‑only home use and hotspotting.
• Public connectivity: Libraries, schools, and municipal buildings serve as important Wi‑Fi anchors, especially after the Affordable Connectivity Program wind‑down, which disproportionately affected rural low‑income households.

Key ways Fulton County trends differ from Illinois overall

• Lower overall and senior smartphone adoption; higher share of basic/older devices.
• Higher reliance on cellular data plans for home connectivity and a higher cellular‑only share.
• Larger “no home internet” segment, driven by affordability and limited wired options.
• Slower median mobile speeds and patchier mid‑band 5G coverage, leading to more Wi‑Fi offload and conservative data use.
• Greater prevalence of prepaid plans and longer device upgrade cycles.

Notes on methodology and confidence

• County estimates blend ACS device/subscription data (for households), Pew/NTIA adoption benchmarks (for person‑level adoption by age/income), FCC availability, and observed rural/urban deltas. Ranges reflect margin‑of‑error and rural variability within the county.

Fulton County, IL social media snapshot (estimates)

Context

• Population ~33–34k; adults (18+) ~25–27k. Mostly rural/small‑town (Canton, Lewistown, Farmington), strong community/ school focus.

User stats

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~20k–23k (≈75–85% of adults).
• Daily social users: ≈60–70% of adults.

Most‑used platforms (share of county adults; estimates)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 65–75% (most dominant day‑to‑day platform)
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Pinterest: 25–35% (notably women 25–54)
• Snapchat: 20–30% (teens/20s)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (lower due to occupational mix)
• Nextdoor: 3–8% (limited neighborhood coverage)

Age patterns

• 13–17: Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; minimal Facebook except via parents/teams.
• 18–24: Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat heavy; Facebook for events/groups.
• 25–34: Facebook + Instagram + TikTok; Marketplace and Reels common.
• 35–54: Facebook dominant; YouTube; Pinterest strong (especially moms); TikTok growing.
• 55+: Facebook primary; YouTube second; lower Instagram/TikTok use.

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Overall social media audience skews slightly female (≈51–54% female).
• Facebook: slight female majority; heavy use of Groups/Marketplace.
• Pinterest: female‑heavy.
• TikTok/Snapchat: slight female tilt.
• YouTube: slight male tilt (how‑to, sports, equipment).

Behavioral trends

• Content that performs: local news and school sports, community events, obituaries, hunting/fishing, ag/weather updates, church and charity fundraisers, local dining specials, yard/estate sales.
• Formats/features: short vertical video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) rising; Facebook Groups and Marketplace are central; Stories popular under 35; Messenger and Snapchat for 1:1.
• Timing: peaks evenings 7–10 pm; secondary around lunch (12–1); strong weekend engagement (Sat morning sales/events, Sun community posts).
• Conversion habits: high response to geo‑targeted offers, event RSVPs, and posts with clear details/phone numbers; younger users prefer DMs over calls.
• Trust signals: word‑of‑mouth in local groups, school/booster pages, and recognizable community members drive action.

Notes on method

• County‑specific platform stats aren’t publicly reported; figures are estimates based on Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform usage, rural Midwest benchmarks, and Fulton County demographics (U.S. Census/ACS).