Noble County

Noble County, Indiana — key demographics

Population size

• 47,457 (2020 Census)
• 48,600 (approximate 2023 Census Bureau estimate), indicating modest growth since 2020

Age

• Median age: ~38.3 years
• Under 18: ~26%
• 18 to 64: ~60%
• 65 and over: ~14–15%

Gender

• Male: ~50.5%
• Female: ~49.5%

Race and ethnicity (mutually exclusive; ACS 2019–2023)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~80%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~13%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~1%
• Non-Hispanic Asian: ~1%
• Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5%
• Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.1%
• Non-Hispanic Two or more races: ~5%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~17,500
• Average household size: ~2.7
• Family households: ~69% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~55%
  • With children under 18: ~31%
• Nonfamily households: ~31%
  • Living alone: ~25% (about 9% age 65+)
• Average family size: ~3.2–3.3
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~74%

Insights

• Population is growing modestly post-2020.
• Age structure skews slightly younger than many rural counties, with a sizable share under 18.
• The county is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with a meaningful and growing Hispanic community.
• Household structure is largely family- and owner-occupied, consistent with small metro/micropolitan Indiana counties.

• Noble County, IN (2020 Census): 47,457 residents; land area ≈411 sq mi; density ≈116/sq mi.

• Digital access: ACS 2018–2022 indicates 92% of households have a computer and 84% have a broadband subscription. About 13% of households are smartphone‑only, signaling some mobile‑dependent internet use.

• Estimated email users: Adult population ≈35,000. Applying ~93% internet use among adults and ~92% email use among internet users (Pew Research), the county has ≈30,000 adult email users.

• Age distribution (residents): under 18 ≈26%, 18–34 ≈19%, 35–54 ≈28%, 55–64 ≈14%, 65+ ≈13%. Email usage is near‑universal for ages 18–54 (≈95%+), high for 55–64 (≈90%), and substantial for 65+ (≈80–85%), so the email user base is concentrated among working‑age adults.

• Gender split: Population is roughly balanced (≈50% female/50% male); email adoption shows no material gender gap, so users are ≈50/50 by gender.

• Connectivity insights: Moderate population density with dispersed rural areas correlates with lower fixed‑broadband adoption outside towns (e.g., Kendallville, Ligonier, Albion). State‑supported fiber buildouts are expanding coverage, nudging broadband adoption toward the high‑80s% and improving reliability and speeds countywide.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Noble County, Indiana (best-available estimates, 2023)

Topline user estimates

• Population context: ~48,000 residents; ~36,000 adults (18+).
• Smartphone users: 33,000–36,000 residents (roughly 82–89% of adults; 68–75% of total population when including teens).
• Any mobile phone (smartphone or basic/feature phone): 38,000–41,000 residents (about 90–96% of adults).
• Mobile-only internet households (rely on cellular data instead of fixed broadband): estimated 16–22% of households, higher than the statewide share.
• Wireless-only voice (no landline): majority of households, in line with national and Indiana trends, with rural pockets lagging.

Demographic patterns

• Age
  • 18–49: Near-universal smartphone ownership (92–97%); heavy app and messaging use; dominant channel for news and entertainment.
  • 50–64: High adoption (80–90%); growing use of telehealth and banking apps; more likely than younger groups to keep a legacy voice line.
  • 65+: Moderate adoption (60–75%); meaningful device-use gaps persist in the most rural townships; larger share rely on basic phones than the state average.
• Income and education
  • Lower- and moderate-income households show higher “mobile-first” dependence (cellular data as primary home internet) than the Indiana average, reflecting cost-sensitive substitution away from fixed broadband where fiber/cable is limited.
  • Households with less formal education are more likely to be smartphone-only for internet access, a stronger effect locally than statewide due to rural infrastructure variance.
• Race/ethnicity and community factors
  • Noble County’s Hispanic/Latino share is above the statewide average; this group tends to exhibit high smartphone adoption and mobile-first internet usage, lifting overall mobile engagement.
  • The county has some Amish and conservative Plain communities; these households depress overall smartphone penetration slightly relative to state averages and contribute to a higher share of voice/text-only devices in specific tracts.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Cellular networks
  • 4G LTE: Countywide baseline coverage from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon; performance strongest in and around Kendallville, Ligonier, Albion, and along US-6/SR-3/SR-9 corridors.
  • 5G: Broad low-band coverage and expanding mid-band in town centers and along main corridors; more variable performance in sparsely populated areas and near lakes/forested zones (for example, around Chain O’Lakes State Park), leading to speed drops and indoor coverage challenges.
  • Fixed wireless access (FWA): T-Mobile 5G Home Internet and Verizon 5G/LTE Home are available to portions of the county; FWA uptake is materially higher than the state average where cable/fiber options are thin.
• Wireline and last-mile context
  • Fiber: Ongoing buildouts by regional providers (for example, local telco/fiber operators) and projects backed by Indiana’s Next Level Connections grants; fiber is present in and between towns but remains patchy in outer townships.
  • Cable: Available in larger towns; not universal in rural areas.
  • Legacy DSL and WISPs: Still important in rural townships; WISPs and farmsteads use LTE/5G routers when line-of-sight or fiber is unavailable, reinforcing mobile-first reliance.

How Noble County differs from statewide trends

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration than Indiana’s average, driven by rural pockets and the presence of Plain communities, though younger and working-age residents remain near-universal adopters.
• Noticeably higher share of mobile-only internet households than the statewide rate, reflecting a mix of income sensitivity and incomplete fiber/cable coverage.
• Greater dependence on fixed wireless access and cellular hotspots for home connectivity than the state average; this also raises monthly mobile data consumption per user.
• More pronounced urban–rural performance gap: speeds and indoor coverage are strong in towns and along highways but degrade faster moving into low-density areas compared with typical Indiana counties of similar size.
• Demographic composition (a comparatively higher Hispanic/Latino share) supports strong smartphone reliance and app-centric communication, contributing to high messaging and social video usage relative to fixed-home browsing.

Implications

• Mobile networks in Noble County shoulder a larger share of “home internet” duties than in many Indiana counties, making mid-band 5G densification and rural sector capacity upgrades particularly impactful.
• Fiber expansion will reduce mobile-only households over time, but in the near term, fixed wireless and hotspot use will remain elevated.
• Public-service delivery (telehealth, school platforms, emergency alerts) should assume mobile-first access, especially outside town centers.

Notes on method and data vintage

• Estimates synthesize 2020 Census population baselines, county-level age structure from recent ACS releases, national/rural smartphone adoption by age (Pew and similar studies through 2023), and FCC/industry coverage patterns observed in northeast Indiana through 2023. Figures are expressed as ranges to reflect uncertainty at the county level while preserving directional accuracy versus statewide trends.

Social media usage snapshot for Noble County, Indiana (modeled to the county’s age/gender mix using the latest U.S. platform adoption data from Pew Research Center, 2023–2024, and ACS demographics)

Overall users (13+)

• Estimated share using at least one social platform: 78–82% of residents 13+ (roughly 8 in 10)
• Device behavior: overwhelmingly mobile-first; short‑form video and messaging drive daily engagement

Most‑used platforms (share of residents 13+ who use each platform)

• YouTube: 82–85%
• Facebook: 67–71%
• Instagram: 42–46%
• TikTok: 32–36%
• Snapchat: 26–30%
• Pinterest: 28–33%
• LinkedIn: 18–22%
• X (Twitter): 15–18%
• Reddit: 12–15%

Age‑group patterns (share of each age group using each platform)

• Teens 13–17: YouTube ~95%; Snapchat ~70–75%; TikTok ~65–70%; Instagram ~60–65%; Facebook ~25–35%
• Young adults 18–29: YouTube ~90–95%; Instagram ~70–80%; Snapchat ~65–70%; TikTok ~55–65%; Facebook ~60–70%; X ~25–35%; Reddit ~25–30%
• Adults 30–49: YouTube ~85–90%; Facebook ~70–80%; Instagram ~45–50%; TikTok ~30–40%; Snapchat ~25–35%; Pinterest (women) ~40–45%; LinkedIn ~20–25%
• Adults 50–64: YouTube ~70–80%; Facebook ~65–70%; Instagram ~25–35%; TikTok ~15–25%; Pinterest (women) ~30–35%; LinkedIn ~15–20%
• Seniors 65+: Facebook ~50–55%; YouTube ~50–55%; Instagram ~10–20%; TikTok ~5–10%; Pinterest ~15–20%

Gender breakdown (share of user base by platform; skew reflects typical patterns in the Midwest)

• Facebook: roughly balanced (female ~52%, male ~48)
• Instagram: female‑skewed (female ~55%, male ~45)
• TikTok: female‑skewed (female ~58%, male ~42)
• Snapchat: female‑skewed (female ~60%, male ~40)
• Pinterest: heavily female (female ~75–80%, male ~20–25)
• LinkedIn: slight male skew (male ~54%, female ~46)
• X (Twitter): male‑skewed (male ~60%, female ~40)
• Reddit: male‑skewed (male ~70%, female ~30)

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Facebook is the community backbone: high activity in local groups (buy/sell/trade, school athletics, town updates), events, and small‑business pages; Marketplace is widely used for peer‑to‑peer sales
• Video leads: short‑form (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives discovery for local food, festivals, and services; how‑to/DIY and outdoor content perform strongly on YouTube
• Messaging > public posting for younger users: heavy reliance on Snapchat and Instagram DMs; Facebook Messenger is common across ages
• Time‑of‑day engagement: evening peaks (7–10 pm) across platforms; lunchtime check‑ins on weekdays; weekend spikes tied to sports and events
• Cross‑platform use is the norm: most users active on 2–4 platforms; Reels/TikTok content is frequently repurposed to Facebook
• Commerce and response behavior: users prefer click‑to‑call, message‑to‑book, and event RSVPs; promos with clear local value (limited‑time offers, seasonal services) get faster action
• Language/cultural note: Spanish‑language content can expand reach among Latino residents; WhatsApp use is present within family networks though smaller than Messenger/SMS

Notes on methodology

• Figures are county‑level estimates created by applying current national platform adoption rates (Pew Research Center, 2023–2024) to Noble County’s age/gender profile (ACS). Percent ranges reflect rural/Midwest usage skews and platform reporting differences.