Edwards County

Which data vintage do you prefer?

• 2020 Decennial Census (exact counts; best for total population and race/Hispanic).
• ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates (more detail for age/households; small-area MOEs apply).

Also, do you want counts, percentages, or both?

Edwards County, KS email usage (estimates)

• Population base: ≈2,800 residents; low density (about 4–5 people per square mile), with most connectivity centered in Kinsley, Lewis, and Offerle.
• Estimated email users: 2,000–2,300 residents use email at least monthly (roughly 70–80% of the population; 85–90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–34: ~20–22%
  • 35–54: ~28–32%
  • 55–64: ~16–20%
  • 65+: ~28–34% (Higher adoption among younger adults; seniors’ usage lags but is growing.)
• Gender split: ~50% female, ~50% male among users.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: ~70–80%; computer or smartphone access: ~85–90%.
  • 10–15% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Fiber and fixed‑wireless availability is expanding from town centers outward; coverage is strongest along US‑50/56 corridors, with patchier service in outlying farm/ranch areas.
  • LTE/5G mobile coverage is good along highways; dead zones persist in sparsely populated sections.
  • Affordability pressures increased after the 2024 ACP wind‑down, potentially slowing subscription growth.

Notes: Figures synthesized from ACS/FCC rural‑county benchmarks and national email adoption rates, scaled to Edwards County’s size and age profile.

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

Snapshot and user estimates

• Population context: Small, rural county (just under 3,000 residents; roughly 2,100–2,300 adults). Aging population and lower median income than the Kansas average.
• Adults with a mobile phone (any type): About 2,000–2,200 (≈95–96% of adults). This is close to statewide, but with more basic/feature phones than average.
• Adults with a smartphone: About 1,500–1,800 (≈72–78% of adults), materially below the statewide smartphone share (typically mid‑80s).
• Mobile-only households: Noticeably higher share than statewide, driven by gaps in wired broadband; a visible minority rely on phone hotspots or carrier “home internet” plans.

Demographic breakdown driving usage

• Age:
  • 65+ share is well above the Kansas average. Estimated smartphone adoption in this group is 55–65%, vs. ~80%+ for the state overall; basic phones remain common.
  • Working-age adults (35–64) show solid adoption (≈80–85%) but device replacement cycles run longer (3–5 years vs. 2–3 statewide).
  • Younger adults (18–34) are near statewide norms (≈90–95% with smartphones), but a higher share uses budget devices and prepaid plans.
• Ethnicity and language:
  • Hispanic/Latino share is higher than the state average. This correlates with strong use of messaging apps like WhatsApp and a meaningful prepaid segment (family plans that support international calling/messaging).
• Plan types and spend:
  • Prepaid and budget MVNO plans have a larger footprint than statewide (rough estimate: 30–40% of lines, vs. ≈20–25% statewide), reflecting income, credit, and seasonal/temporary work patterns.
  • Multi-carrier households are more common; families keep different carriers to hedge coverage gaps.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what’s distinct locally)

• Tower density and geography:
  • Sparse macro-tower grid with sites clustered near Kinsley, Lewis, Offerle, and along the US‑50/US‑56 corridor; coverage thins quickly outside towns. Users frequently rely on signal boosters in farm/ranch settings.
• 4G LTE:
  • Generally reliable along highways and in towns; dead zones appear on secondary roads and between townships, more so than the statewide average.
• 5G availability:
  • Low-band 5G is present in/around towns and along main corridors, but mid‑band 5G is spotty and mmWave is effectively absent. This lags urban/suburban Kansas where mid‑band 5G is more common.
  • Practical effect: many residents see LTE-like speeds on “5G” and limited capacity gains compared with metros.
• Performance:
  • Median mobile speeds are below state medians, with wider swing between “in town” and “out of town.” Congestion is rare, but signal quality (not load) is the limiting factor outside towns.
• Carrier dynamics:
  • Coverage-driven choice dominates. Verizon and AT&T have historically strong LTE footprints; T‑Mobile’s low‑band 5G has improved reach in town centers but still trails in the most remote spots. Households sometimes mix carriers for redundancy.
• Backhaul and wired context:
  • Fiber backhaul and residential fiber exist mainly in town centers; beyond that, options tilt to fixed wireless or legacy copper. This pushes a higher share of households to use cellular for home internet compared with the Kansas average.
  • Public safety/FirstNet (AT&T) is present on main corridors; off‑corridor reliability varies more than statewide.

Usage patterns that differ from statewide trends

• Lower smartphone penetration, driven by an older age profile and tighter budgets.
• Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and longer device lifecycles.
• Greater use of mobile hotspots/cellular home internet as primary connectivity, due to limited wired options outside towns.
• More multi-carrier households and personal signal-boosting to work around coverage gaps.
• 5G benefits are modest so far (low-band reach but limited mid‑band capacity), so day-to-day experience often mirrors LTE—unlike Kansas metros where mid‑band 5G has raised speeds appreciably.

Notes on uncertainty and method

• Figures are estimates derived from county population structure (older, rural), national/rural adoption benchmarks, and typical Kansas rural network footprints. Exact counts vary by carrier buildouts and ongoing fiber/5G expansions.

Below is a concise, modeled snapshot of social media usage in Edwards County, KS. Exact, platform-by-platform county data isn’t published; figures use Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption, adjusted for rural patterns and Edwards County’s small, older-leaning population.

Quick snapshot

• Population: about 2,900 residents
• Estimated monthly social media users (age 13+): ~1,900–2,200

User mix (share of users by age)

• 13–17: 7–9%
• 18–29: 18–22%
• 30–44: 25–30%
• 45–64: 25–30%
• 65+: 15–20% Notes: Near-universal use among 18–29; usage tapers with age but remains meaningful in 65+ via Facebook and YouTube.

Gender breakdown (users)

• Female: ~51–54%
• Male: ~46–49% Notes: Women more active on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X.

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+ using monthly; rural-adjusted estimates)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 65–75% (highest daily use; local groups/events)
• Instagram: 30–40% (stronger under 45)
• TikTok: 25–35% (teens/20s; short video discovery)
• Snapchat: 20–30% overall; 60%+ of teens/20s
• Pinterest: 30–40% (skews female, home/DIY/recipes)
• WhatsApp: 10–15% (family, international ties)
• X/Twitter: 10–15% (state/national news, sports)
• Reddit: 8–12% (younger men, niche hobby/ag forums)
• Nextdoor: <5% (sparser neighborhoods)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: school sports, churches, county alerts, buy/sell/trade, events.
• Messaging > posting for coordination: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat drive day-to-day chatter.
• Video is rising: short vertical video (TikTok/Reels/Shorts) for entertainment; YouTube for how‑to (equipment repair, home/auto, ag tips).
• Strong “local trust” effect: posts from known locals, coaches, pastors, and county offices travel far; boosted local FB posts outperform generic ads.
• Peak times: early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (11:30–1), evening (7–9); spikes around school/harvest seasons and severe weather.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace and local group sales outperform formal social shops; clear phone/text contacts convert best.

Sources/method

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use (2023–2024); urban–suburban–rural differentials
• U.S. Census/ACS for Edwards County population and age profile
• Modeled county estimates applying Pew adoption rates with rural adjustments and local age mix