Carter County

Here are concise, recent demographics for Carter County, Kentucky (U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Census and 2019–2023 ACS 5‑year estimates):

• Population size: ~26.6k (2020 Census)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~41–42 years
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 65 and over: ~19%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%
• Race/ethnicity (percent of population):
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~95–97%
  • Black or African American: ~0.5–1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.2–0.4%
  • Asian: ~0.1–0.3%
  • Two or more races: ~2–3%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~1–2%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~10k–11k
  • Average household size: ~2.5
  • Family households: roughly two-thirds of households

Note: Figures are rounded ACS/Census values; exact counts vary by data vintage (2020 Decennial vs. 2019–2023 ACS).

Carter County, KY snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: 26,600 residents over ~412 sq mi (65 people/sq mi), notably rural versus Kentucky’s average.
• Email users: 19,000–20,000 regular users. Method: 13–17 (1.7k people) at 70% email use; 18–64 (15.7k) at 92%; 65+ (4.8k) at ~80%.
• Age distribution of email users: 13–17 ≈6%; 18–64 ≈74%; 65+ ≈20%. Usage is near-universal among working-age adults, with lower but substantial adoption among seniors.
• Gender split: Population ~50–51% female, ~49–50% male; email use is similar by gender, so users are roughly evenly split.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription roughly 70–75%; another ~10–15% rely primarily on smartphones for internet.
  • Best wired and 5G/4G coverage clusters along the I‑64/US‑60 corridor (Grayson, Olive Hill); more gaps in outlying hollows where DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite fill in.
  • Public access: county libraries and schools provide free Wi‑Fi/computers, important for residents without home service.
  • Ongoing fiber and fixed‑wireless builds (state/federal programs) are expanding coverage, but affordability and terrain remain constraints.

Sources: 2020 Census/ACS for population and broadband adoption; Pew Research on age/gender email usage. Estimates adjusted to local rural context.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Carter County, Kentucky (2025 snapshot)

Bottom line

• Estimated smartphone users: 20,000–22,000 residents. This reflects roughly 78–84% adoption among residents age 12+, a few points below the Kentucky statewide rate due to Carter County’s older, lower‑income, and more rural profile.
• Additional basic/feature‑phone users: ~1,000–2,000.
• Smartphone‑only internet reliance: 18–25% of households likely rely on a cellular data plan as their primary or only home internet connection, noticeably higher than the statewide share.

What’s different from the Kentucky average

• Adoption is modestly lower: Smartphone ownership likely trails the state by about 3–6 percentage points, driven by an older age mix and lower household incomes.
• More smartphone‑only households: Reliance on mobile data for home internet is several points higher than the state average, reflecting sparser fixed‑broadband options outside town centers.
• 5G availability and speeds are less consistent: 5G/LTE capacity is strong along the I‑64 corridor and in Grayson/Olive Hill, but coverage and throughput drop more quickly than the state average in hollows and ridge areas; many users remain on LTE outside the highway/town footprints.
• Greater variability in experience: Terrain and lower tower density produce more dead zones and peak‑time slowdowns than typical for Kentucky’s metro and micropolitan counties.

User estimates and usage patterns

• Total population base: ≈26,000–27,000 residents.
• Smartphone users: 20,000–22,000 (most teens and working‑age adults; lower take‑up among seniors).
• Primary mobile activities: Text/messaging, Facebook and short‑form video dominate; video streaming and hotspotting are common but constrained by data caps and variable speeds outside town centers.
• Plan types: Above‑average prevalence of prepaid and value plans; family plans and budget Android devices are common. This differs from higher‑income Kentucky counties where postpaid and iPhone penetration are higher.

Demographic drivers (how Carter County differs from the state)

• Age: Slightly older than the state overall. Seniors are a larger share, and seniors’ smartphone adoption lags, pulling down the county average.
• Income and poverty: Lower median household income and higher poverty rates than the Kentucky average correlate with more smartphone‑only connectivity and prepaid plan usage.
• Education: Lower bachelor’s‑degree attainment than the state average; this often coincides with lower digital adoption and greater reliance on smartphones over PCs at home.
• Race/ethnicity: Predominantly White non‑Hispanic; smaller Hispanic and Black populations than the state average. Given their smaller size locally, race/ethnicity has less effect on aggregate mobile trends than age and income do.
• Disability and health: Slightly higher disability prevalence than the state average can increase use of accessibility features and larger‑format devices.

Digital infrastructure touchpoints

• Coverage geography: Strongest along I‑64 and in/around Grayson and Olive Hill. Coverage becomes patchier in hollows, ridge lines, and parklands (e.g., around Carter Caves), where terrain limits line‑of‑sight.
• Network generation: 4G LTE is the default in most of the county; low‑band 5G is present mainly along major corridors and in town centers; mid‑band 5G capacity is more limited than the state average outside highways.
• Capacity and reliability: Fewer cell sites per square mile than Kentucky’s urban counties; more noticeable evening/weekend slowdowns. Backhaul can be a mix of fiber and microwave; single‑path routes increase outage sensitivity during storms.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Cable/fiber is available in town centers; many rural areas rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or none. Where fixed options are weak, households lean on mobile data plans (hotspots and smartphone tethering), amplifying the smartphone‑only pattern.
• Public access: Libraries, schools, and some municipal buildings provide essential Wi‑Fi offload points; these are more critical here than in better‑served Kentucky locales.

Implications

• Service design: Prioritize SMS and lightweight, mobile‑first web experiences; offline modes and low‑data options help. Expect higher rates of Android usage and prepaid billing.
• Outreach: Use text messaging and Facebook for reach; schedule around variable evening bandwidth.
• Infrastructure opportunities: 5G mid‑band infill, additional macro sites or small cells near valleys, and stronger fiber backhaul would narrow the gap with state‑level performance.

How these estimates were derived

• Population and demographics from recent ACS/Census county profiles.
• Adoption rates applied from national and Kentucky rural/urban smartphone ownership benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research), adjusted for Carter County’s older age mix and lower incomes.
• Smartphone‑only reliance inferred from ACS “Internet and device” household patterns for rural Kentucky counties, with ranges used to reflect uncertainty.
• Coverage and capacity observations are generalized from FCC availability maps and known effects of Appalachian terrain; they describe patterns rather than carrier‑specific claims.

Here’s a concise, data-informed snapshot. Figures are modeled estimates for Carter County, KY (pop. ≈26.5k) using Pew Research Center social media adoption by age, adjusted for a slightly older, rural profile; not a county-specific survey.

Overall user stats (13+)

• Estimated social media users: 16,000–18,000 (≈60–68% of total population)
• Internet/broadband constraints likely temper heavy video use outside Wi‑Fi and in more remote areas

Age groups (share using any social platform)

• Teens 13–17: ~95%
• Adults 18–34: ~90%
• Adults 35–54: ~80–85%
• Adults 55–64: ~65–70%
• Adults 65+: ~45–55%

Gender breakdown (of local social media users)

• Female ~52–55%
• Male ~45–48% Note: Slight female skew driven by Facebook and Pinterest usage among 25–64.

Most‑used platforms (share of local social media users; overlap expected)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 70–80% (Groups and Messenger are core)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 30–40%
• Pinterest: 25–35% (strong among women 25–54)
• Snapchat: 20–30% (teens/young adults)
• X/Twitter: 10–15% (sports, weather, state news)
• Reddit: 8–12% (younger males)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (lower in rural/blue‑collar mix)
• Nextdoor: 2–5% (limited presence)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: High engagement with local news, school sports, church and civic events, yard sales, lost/found pets, severe weather updates.
• Facebook Groups are the town square: School PTOs, buy/sell/trade, local government announcements, local businesses.
• Video, but keep it light: Short vertical clips (Reels/TikTok) for under‑35; YouTube for how‑tos, church services, local sports replays. Wi‑Fi posting/viewing common.
• Messaging over public posts for youth: Snapchat and Instagram DMs are primary for teens/20s; Facebook Messenger for older adults.
• Visuals win: Local faces, landmarks, and before/after projects outperform generic stock content.
• Timing: Peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch, and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekend mornings strong for events and sales.
• Trust and locality: Posts from known local people, churches, schools, and small businesses outperform outside/anonymous pages.

Notes and sources

• Modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media use by age/rural status and U.S. Census/ACS demographics for Carter County.
• For exact local counts, check platform ad planners (Facebook/Instagram, TikTok, Snap) with a Carter County geo-fence and run a short community survey.