Gove County

Here are key demographics for Gove County, Kansas (latest U.S. Census Bureau data; small-county ACS figures have margins of error and are rounded):

Population

• 2,585 (2023 Population Estimates)
• 2,718 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~45 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~23%

Gender

• Female: ~49%
• Male: ~51%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023)

• White alone: ~93%
• Black or African American alone: ~0–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0–1%
• Two or more races: ~4–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~8%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~88%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~1,120
• Average household size: ~2.2
• Family households: ~60% of households
• Married-couple households: ~50–52% of households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 Population Estimates; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Summary of email usage in Gove County, Kansas (estimates)

• Estimated users: 1,800–2,200 residents use email regularly. Basis: 2020 population ~2,700, rural broadband/phone internet adoption in this region ~70–85%, and email’s near‑universal use among online adults.
• Age distribution (share of people using email):
  • Teens (13–17): ~85–95% (school logins, college prep).
  • 18–34: ~95–99%.
  • 35–64: ~90–97%.
  • 65+: ~70–85% (lower adoption, growing with smartphones).
• Gender split: Roughly even (county population is near 50/50; email usage shows minimal gender gap).
• Digital access trends:
  • Most households have internet via fixed broadband or smartphones; fiber is available in/around town centers (e.g., Quinter/Grinnell/Gove City) from regional providers, with DSL/wireless or satellite in outlying ranchland.
  • Smartphone‑only households are common in rural areas and support high email use via mobile apps.
  • LTE/5G coverage is strongest along I‑70; service is patchier in sparsely populated areas.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Very low density (~2.5 people/sq mi across ~1,070 sq mi) raises last‑mile costs and leaves some pockets reliant on wireless or satellite.
  • Public anchors (schools, library) serve as key Wi‑Fi access points.

Below is a planning-style snapshot based on publicly available state/national datasets (ACS, Pew Research, FCC maps) and regional market patterns. Because hyper-local mobile-usage data are not published at the county level, figures are presented as reasoned estimates with ranges.

Headline estimate (2025)

• Population baseline: ~2,600 residents; ~2,000 adults (18+).
• Mobile phone users: ~1,900–2,000 adults (≈93–96% of adults).
• Smartphone users: ~1,550–1,700 adults (≈78–85% of adults), lower than the Kansas average due to older age mix and rural coverage constraints.
• Mobile-only home internet (households relying mainly on cellular hotspots/phone tethering): materially higher than urban KS peers, but overall share likely below the statewide average for “wireless-only” voice households due to retention of landlines/VoIP among seniors. Expect a split pattern: higher hotspot reliance outside towns, lower in fiber-served towns.

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age
  • 18–34: Near-universal smartphone ownership (≈95%+), in line with state.
  • 35–64: High smartphone take-up (≈85–90%), a bit below state averages.
  • 65+: Noticeably lower smartphone adoption (≈60–70%); higher incidence of basic/feature phones and larger displays for accessibility. This age skew is the single biggest difference from Kansas overall.
• Income/plan type
  • More prepaid and value plans than the state average; longer device replacement cycles (3–5 years common).
  • Hotspot add-ons used for homework/telehealth in households lacking robust fixed broadband.
• Platform/device mix
  • Android share likely higher than statewide average; iOS share somewhat lower, consistent with rural price sensitivity.
• Household type
  • Farm/ranch operations show heavier use of LTE/5G for precision ag, telemetry, and seasonal data spikes during planting/harvest.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage geography
  • Strongest and most redundant coverage along I‑70 (Quinter, Grainfield, Park) where multiple carriers overlap.
  • Noticeably weaker signal and capacity moving south of I‑70 into sparsely populated ranchland and around natural features; in-vehicle coverage is typically acceptable, but in-building performance can drop off outside towns.
• 4G/5G
  • 4G LTE is the baseline almost countywide; 5G low-band is present primarily along the highway/town corridors. Mid-band (C-band/2.5 GHz) capacity is much patchier than in metro KS, so real-world 5G speeds vary widely and often fall back to LTE away from I‑70.
• Carriers
  • Verizon and AT&T generally offer the most consistent rural footprint; T‑Mobile coverage is improving but can be inconsistent off-corridor. Residents prioritize coverage reliability over peak speeds more than the average Kansan.
• Tower/backhaul
  • Sparse macro-tower grid relative to population density; most sites cluster near towns/interchanges. Capacity upgrades tend to follow I‑70 traffic first. Backhaul is adequate in towns (where fiber is present) and thinner in remote areas.
• Wireline interplay
  • Regional providers (e.g., Nex‑Tech and similar rural telcos) have deployed fiber in several town centers; many outlying areas depend on fixed wireless or legacy DSL. Where fiber is available, households lean less on cellular hotspots; outside those zones, mobile data often substitutes for home broadband.
• Public access/anchor institutions
  • Schools, libraries, and clinics in town provide Wi‑Fi and act as digital anchors; this mitigates—but does not eliminate—rural connectivity gaps.

How Gove County differs from the Kansas statewide picture

• Adoption mix
  • Smartphone ownership is a few points lower than the state average, driven by a larger 65+ share and coverage/capacity trade-offs off the highway corridor.
  • Higher prevalence of basic/feature phones among seniors than the state norm.
• Network experience
  • Larger highway-versus-hinterland performance gap: service is solid along I‑70 but drops in capacity and indoor reliability south of the corridor—more so than typical for Kansas overall.
  • Less mid-band 5G exposure; more time spent on LTE compared with urban/suburban Kansans.
• Usage patterns
  • Greater reliance on mobile hotspots in rural households without fiber; simultaneously, a lower share of “wireless-only voice” among older residents who keep landline/VoIP—creating a bifurcated pattern that’s more pronounced than statewide.
  • Device and plan choices skew more toward coverage-first, prepaid, and ruggedized/utility devices (ag, energy, field work).
• Market concentration
  • Higher share of subscribers on carriers with stronger rural footprints (typically Verizon/AT&T) versus the state mix, where T‑Mobile has gained more ground in metros.

Planning implications

• Prioritize mid-band 5G and additional sites or small cells south of I‑70 to close the corridor–hinterland gap.
• Target senior-focused digital literacy and device upgrade programs; improvements here would narrow the county’s biggest adoption delta vs. the state.
• Coordinate with rural telcos to expand fiber or high-capacity fixed wireless, reducing dependence on cellular hotspots for home internet outside towns.

Notes on methodology

• Population and age structure: recent ACS/Census estimates for Gove County.
• Smartphone adoption baselines and rural/age deltas: Pew Research Center national surveys, adjusted for rural profiles.
• Coverage and 5G availability: synthesis of carrier coverage disclosures and FCC maps; specific tower counts are not published at a granular level.
• Figures are indicative ranges to guide planning; local carrier drive tests and ISP availability checks will refine them.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for Gove County, KS. True platform-by-platform stats aren’t published at the county level, so figures are modeled from the county’s size and age mix (ACS), rural adoption patterns, and recent Pew Research social media benchmarks.

Snapshot

• Population: ≈2,600 residents (rural; older-leaning age profile)
• Internet access: ~75–85% of households have home internet; smartphone ownership is widespread among adults

Estimated social media users

• Total users (13+): ~1,600–1,800 residents
• Share of population: ~62–70% of all residents; ~75–85% of those age 13+
• Adults (18+): ~1,450–1,650 users

Age mix of users (approx. share of local social users)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–34: 25–30%
• 35–54: 30–35%
• 55+: 30–35%

Gender breakdown (of users)

• Women: ~52–55%
• Men: ~45–48% Notes: Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and X/Reddit.

Most-used platforms among local social media users (modeled ranges)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook (core app): ~70–78%
• Facebook Groups/Marketplace: ~60–65% (subset of Facebook but highly active)
• Instagram: ~30–40%
• TikTok: ~25–35% overall; ~60–75% among under-30
• Snapchat: ~20–30% overall; ~60–80% among teens/20s
• Pinterest: ~25–35% (skews female 25–54)
• X (Twitter): ~12–18%
• LinkedIn: ~10–15%
• WhatsApp: ~10–15% (Messenger usage is higher due to Facebook)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups for school/sports updates, county fair, church/4‑H, weather/road closures, and buy–sell via Marketplace.
• Event-driven spikes: high engagement around high school sports nights, severe weather, harvest season, and local events.
• Messaging > posting for younger residents: Snapchat and Instagram DMs for day-to-day chatter; TikTok/IG Reels for entertainment and trends.
• Video habits: short-form (Reels/TikTok) growth under 35; YouTube widely used across ages for how‑tos, ag content, and weather.
• Trust and conversion: recommendations from known locals and community pages outperform generic ads; Facebook Events and word-of-mouth are key for turnout.
• Timing: peak activity evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; morning quick-checks are common during planting/harvest and school days.
• Platform shifts: gradual TikTok/IG Reels growth; X usage modest; Nextdoor presence minimal in small towns.

Method note

• Estimates blend Census/ACS age structure for Gove County with Pew Research Center 2023–2024 platform adoption rates, adjusted for rural usage patterns. Small population implies wider margins of error; use ranges as directional guidance.