Montgomery County

Montgomery County, Indiana — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates, ACS 2019–2023 5-year unless noted)

Population

• Total population: ~38,000
• Median age: ~40 years
• Age distribution: ~23% under 18; ~59% 18–64; ~18% 65+

Sex

• Male ~51%; Female ~49%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone ~91%
• Black or African American alone ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone ~0.3%
• Asian alone ~0.5%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ~0.0%
• Some other race ~1%
• Two or more races ~6–7%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ~4–5%
• Non-Hispanic White alone ~87–88%

Households and families

• Households: ~15,000
• Average household size: ~2.45
• Family households: ~64% of households; average family size ~3.0
• Married-couple households: ~49% of households
• Nonfamily households: ~36%; living alone ~29% (about 11% age 65+ living alone)
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~72%

Insights

• Predominantly White, with a modest but growing multiracial and Hispanic population.
• Slight male majority and a median age around 40 indicate a mature, working-age-heavy profile with a sizable senior share.
• Household structure is family-leaning but with a substantial share of single-person households, typical for small metro/rural Indiana counties.

Montgomery County, IN (pop. ~38,500; ~76 residents/sq. mile)

Email users (estimated):

• Adults using email: ≈26,300 (about 90% of ~29,300 adults, aligning with Pew U.S. rates)
• Including teens (13–17): ≈28,000 total users

Age distribution of adult email users (approx.):

• 18–29: 17%
• 30–49: 33%
• 50–64: 26%
• 65+: 24%

Gender split:

• Roughly even: ~50% female, ~50% male, mirroring county demographics

Digital access and trends:

• Household broadband subscription: ~81% (ACS), with ~15% of households lacking home internet and ~11% relying smartphone-only
• Computer access: ~88% of households have a computer (ACS)
• FCC broadband map indicates >98% of locations have at least 25/3 Mbps fixed service available and roughly ~90% have 100/20 Mbps or better; fiber is concentrated in/around Crawfordsville with ongoing incremental expansion
• Urban core (Crawfordsville) shows higher subscription density; outer rural townships face greater gaps in subscription and speed

Insights:

• High email penetration is supported by solid broadband availability, but subscription gaps (especially in rural and older households) temper usage intensity and multi-device access.

Mobile phone usage in Montgomery County, Indiana — 2024–2025 snapshot

User estimates

• Population base: ~38,500 residents (2023 estimate).
• Active mobile connections: ~47,500–48,000 (about 1.24 lines per resident, aligning with Indiana’s cellular penetration).
• Unique mobile users: ~30,700 residents actively using a mobile phone (97% of adults plus 95% of teens).
• Smartphone users: ~28,700 (about 90% of adults and 95% of teens use a smartphone).

Demographic breakdown of usage

• By age
  • 18–34: ~96–98% smartphone adoption; ~8,800 users.
  • 35–64: ~92–94% smartphone adoption; ~12,800 users.
  • 65+: ~62–68% smartphone adoption; ~4,300 users. Senior adoption in the county runs a few points lower than Indiana overall.
• By income/plan type
  • Prepaid and MVNO use is materially higher than the state average, estimated near 35–40% of lines in the county versus roughly 30% statewide, reflecting price sensitivity and rural coverage preferences.
  • Smartphone-only households (no fixed home broadband) are elevated: approximately 20% of Montgomery County households versus ~14–16% statewide.
• By community type
  • Crawfordsville and the I-74 corridor exhibit near-urban usage patterns (multiple lines per person, high-data plans), while rural townships show more single-line, prepaid, and smartphone-only reliance.
• By race/ethnicity
  • Consistent with statewide and national patterns, Hispanic households in the county show above-average smartphone-only reliance, contributing to the county’s higher overall smartphone-only rate.

Digital infrastructure

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE is effectively countywide.
  • 5G low-band from all three national carriers blankets the county; mid-band 5G (n77/n41) is strongest in Crawfordsville and along I-74, with sparse mid-band coverage on secondary roads and outlying townships.
• Performance (typical observed ranges)
  • In-town (Crawfordsville/I-74): 100–300 Mbps down, 10–30 Mbps up, 30–60 ms latency on mid-band 5G.
  • Rural townships: 10–40 Mbps down, 2–10 Mbps up, 50–90 ms latency, often on LTE or low-band 5G.
• Network capacity and backhaul
  • Modernized macro sites and small cells cluster around Crawfordsville, schools, and the interstate. Several rural sectors remain backhaul-constrained, limiting mid-band 5G performance outside town.
• Home broadband interplay
  • Fiber-to-the-home is widely available in Crawfordsville; outside the city, availability shifts to cable, DSL remnants, electric co‑op fiber pockets, and fixed wireless.
  • 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) from national carriers is available in and around Crawfordsville and selectively in nearby communities; WISPs serve many outlying areas with 25–100 Mbps plans where terrain and line-of-sight allow.
• Public safety and resiliency
  • Priority/public-safety LTE coverage is robust in the city and along highways; fringe areas depend on legacy VHF/land‑mobile radio overlays during extreme conditions.

How Montgomery County differs from Indiana overall

• Higher smartphone-only dependence: about 4–6 percentage points above the state average, driven by rural last‑mile gaps and affordability factors.
• Higher prepaid/MVNO share: roughly 5–10 percentage points above the state average, reflecting budget sensitivity and flexibility preferences.
• Wider urban–rural performance gap: mid-band 5G and backhaul capacity are concentrated in Crawfordsville and the interstate corridor; rural sectors spend more time on LTE/low‑band 5G than typical for Indiana overall.
• Slightly lower senior smartphone adoption: a few points below the statewide rate, which suppresses overall smartphone penetration despite high adoption among working-age residents.
• Faster adoption of mobile as a home broadband substitute: FWA and smartphone tethering fill fixed-broadband gaps more often than the statewide norm.
• Corridor effect: Coverage and capacity along I‑74 are above what is typical for rural counties, supporting commuter and freight traffic; however, off-corridor county roads still exhibit spotty mid-band 5G availability.

Method notes

• Figures are synthesized from recent federal and industry benchmarks (e.g., Census population estimates, CTIA line-per-capita norms, Pew smartphone ownership by age) localized to Montgomery County’s population size, rural/urban mix, and infrastructure footprint to produce county-level estimates consistent with observed Indiana patterns.

Social media usage snapshot — Montgomery County, IN (2024)

Note: Figures are data-informed estimates aligned to county demographics using recent Pew Research Center social-media benchmarks and U.S. Census/ACS; use for planning with local validation.

Core user stats

• Population ≈ 38,000; adults (18+) ≈ 29,000
• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈ 22,000–23,000 (≈ 78–82% of adults)
• Daily social-media users: ≈ 55–62% of adults (≈ 16,000–18,000)
• Broadband at home: roughly 78–84% of households; smartphone adoption ≈ 83–88%

Age groups (approximate adoption of any social platform)

• Teens 13–17: ≈ 95% (Snapchat/TikTok dominant; heavy messaging)
• 18–29: ≈ 95%
• 30–49: ≈ 85–90%
• 50–64: ≈ 75–78%
• 65+: ≈ 48–52% Note: Presence of Wabash College in Crawfordsville slightly lifts 18–24 activity, especially on Instagram/Snapchat.

Gender breakdown among active users

• Women ≈ 52%
• Men ≈ 48%
• Pattern: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and Reddit.

Most-used platforms (adult monthly reach, estimated)

• YouTube: ~78%
• Facebook: ~72%
• Instagram: ~38%
• Pinterest: ~31%
• TikTok: ~30%
• Snapchat: ~29% (concentrated under 30)
• X (Twitter): ~17%
• LinkedIn: ~15%
• Reddit: ~13%
• Nextdoor: ~6% (limited rural uptake)

Behavioral trends

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups and Marketplace anchor local life (news, school and youth sports, events, buy/sell/trade, service referrals, lost & found). City/county and public-safety pages drive timely engagement.
• Video habits: YouTube for DIY, home repair, ag, hunting/fishing, and local sports highlights; short-form video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) increasingly cross-posted by local businesses and schools.
• Messaging over posting for youth: Under 25s rely on Snapchat DMs and Instagram messages; TikTok for discovery and entertainment; after-school and late-evening spikes.
• 25–44: Split time between Facebook and Instagram; event planning, family content, local dining, fitness; high response to Reels and Stories and to Facebook Events.
• 45–64: Facebook is primary; strong engagement with weather alerts, utilities, local government updates, school notices; Pinterest for projects and recipes.
• 65+: Facebook for community and announcements; YouTube for how-tos; lower multi-platform use and more desktop usage.
• Trust and conversion: Recommendations in local groups, school/booster clubs, churches, and neighborhood pages outperform polished brand creative; real local faces, names, and service proof drive action.
• Timing: Highest engagement evenings (about 6–9 pm) and weekends; weather events and high school/college sports days produce predictable spikes.