Clinton County

To ensure accuracy, do you prefer:

• 2020 Decennial Census counts (exact population/households), or
• 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates (latest detailed breakdowns for age, race/ethnicity, households) for Clinton County, KY?

I can provide both if you’d like.

Clinton County, KY snapshot (pop ~9.7K; ~50 people per sq. mile)

• Estimated email users: 7,000–7,500 residents use email at least monthly. Based on national adult email use (88–92%) adjusted for local broadband subscription and an older age mix.
• Age: Highest adoption among 18–49 (90–95%), strong for 50–64 (85–90%), lower for 65+ (70–80%). Teens use email, but less uniformly (75–85%). Overall penetration is slightly below urban areas due to an older population.
• Gender: Near parity; women typically 1–2 percentage points higher than men in email use.
• Digital access trends: About 70–75% of households likely have a broadband subscription; 15–25% are mobile-only internet users. FCC mapping indicates broad 25/3 Mbps availability but patchier 100/20+ outside Albany and along rural roads. Public Wi‑Fi at libraries/schools remains important.
• Local density/connectivity: Low density and hilly terrain raise last‑mile costs, slowing fiber expansion, though incremental builds continue along main corridors.

Notes: Figures are estimates synthesized from ACS household internet data, FCC availability maps, and Pew Research patterns for rural Kentucky; use for planning, not precise counts.

Mobile phone usage in Clinton County, Kentucky — 2025 snapshot

At‑a‑glance estimates (rounded, with ranges to reflect rural variance)

• Population base: about 9,300–9,600 residents.
• People using any mobile phone: roughly 7,200–7,900 (about 76–83% of the total population; most children under 13 excluded).
• Smartphone users: about 6,300–7,000 people (driven by lower uptake among seniors vs youth).
• Mobile-only home internet: about 800–1,100 households (roughly 22–30% of households), notably higher than typical Kentucky averages.
• Device mix: Android 65–70%; iPhone 30–35%.
• Plan type: prepaid 35–45% of lines; postpaid 55–65%.
• 5G‑capable devices: about 55–65% of active handsets; actual 5G use is lower where mid‑band coverage is thin.

How Clinton County differs from Kentucky overall

• Lower smartphone penetration: A few points below the statewide adult average, mainly due to an older age profile and lower incomes.
• More prepaid, budget plans: Prepaid share is materially higher than the state average, reflecting price sensitivity and credit constraints.
• More Android: Android share is higher than Kentucky’s urbanized counties; iPhone share is comparatively lower.
• Slower 5G uptake and speeds: 5G is present but is more often low‑band; mid‑band 5G (the big speed boost) is spottier than in Kentucky metros.
• Higher reliance on mobile for home internet: A larger slice of households use mobile hotspots or phone tethering as their primary connection, given limited or pricey wired options in outlying areas.
• Coverage gaps shape behavior: Residents prioritize carrier choice by signal on specific roads/hollows rather than by perks, leading to less brand stickiness than in cities.
• Seasonal strain: Summer traffic tied to Dale Hollow Lake and the US‑127 corridor can congest local cells more than typical for the state.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age
  • Teens (13–17): very high smartphone access (>90%); heavy social, short‑form video, and gaming use; frequent Wi‑Fi offload at school.
  • Working‑age adults: broad smartphone adoption but with more budget Android devices and shared family plans; hotspot use for homework and remote work when fixed broadband is unavailable.
  • Seniors: below‑state smartphone adoption; higher share of basic/older Android devices; voice/SMS and Facebook dominate over app‑centric use.
• Income and affordability
  • Higher poverty rates than the state average correlate with: more prepaid lines, slower upgrade cycles, and greater sensitivity to data caps.
  • The wind‑down of federal affordability subsidies has pushed some households from fixed broadband to mobile‑only.
• Language and culture
  • The county’s relatively homogenous, rural profile means SMS/voice and Facebook remain primary channels; app diversity and paid content adoption trail urban Kentucky.

Digital infrastructure notes

• Coverage pattern
  • Best coverage in and around Albany and along US‑127 and other main corridors.
  • Dead zones persist in wooded hollows and ridge‑shadowed areas; in some border spots devices may camp on Tennessee towers.
• Carrier landscape
  • All three national carriers are present; AT&T and Verizon tend to be more reliable off the main roads; T‑Mobile is improving along highways but remains patchier in remote pockets.
• 5G status
  • Predominantly low‑band 5G for coverage; mid‑band 5G (faster) is limited outside Albany and key corridors, so many users see LTE‑like performance.
• Backhaul and resilience
  • Sparse tower density and limited fiber backhaul mean storms can cause wider, longer outages than in Kentucky’s cities.
• Public access
  • Schools, the public library, and some civic buildings provide essential Wi‑Fi offload; a small number of private hotspots (cafes, gas stations) along US‑127 help fill gaps.

Method and confidence

• Estimates triangulate county population, rural adoption differentials observed in national surveys, Kentucky’s urban–rural digital divide, and carrier coverage patterns typical of south‑central Appalachia as of 2024–2025.
• Use these figures as planning ranges; for precision, validate against the latest FCC Broadband Map, carrier coverage maps, and local school/library connectivity reports.

Clinton County, KY social media snapshot (modeled estimates)

Population baseline

• Residents: ~9,500
• Adults (18+): ~7,200

How many use social media

• Adult social media users: ~5,200–5,700 (≈72–79% of adults)
• Total social media users age 13+: ~5,800–6,300 (≈61–66% of the population)

Most‑used platforms (share of adults using monthly)

• YouTube: ~72–78%
• Facebook: ~65–72%
• Instagram: ~28–35%
• TikTok: ~22–30%
• Snapchat: ~18–25%
• Pinterest: ~20–28% (driven by women)
• X/Twitter: ~8–12%
• LinkedIn: ~6–10%
• WhatsApp: ~5–8%
• Reddit: ~6–10%
• Nextdoor: ~1–3% (very limited presence)

Age patterns (share within each age band who use social media; top platforms)

• 13–17: 90–95%; YouTube ~95%, TikTok 70–80%, Snapchat 65–75%, Instagram 50–60%, Facebook 20–30%
• 18–29: 90–95%; YouTube 90–95%, Instagram 65–75%, TikTok 60–70%, Snapchat 50–60%, Facebook 55–65%
• 30–49: 80–88%; Facebook 75–85%, YouTube 85–90%, Instagram 40–50%, TikTok 30–40%, Pinterest 35–45% (women)
• 50–64: 70–78%; Facebook 70–80%, YouTube 70–80%, Instagram 20–30%, TikTok 15–25%, Pinterest 25–35% (women)
• 65+: 48–58%; Facebook 55–65%, YouTube 50–60%, Instagram 10–15%, TikTok 8–15%

Gender breakdown

• Overall social media users: roughly even (~51% female, 49% male)
• Platform skews among local users:
  • Facebook: ~55–60% female
  • Instagram: ~55–60% female
  • TikTok: ~55–60% female
  • Pinterest: ~80–85% female
  • Snapchat: ~55% female
  • YouTube: ~55–60% male
  • X/Twitter, Reddit: ~60–70% male
  • LinkedIn: slight male tilt (~55%)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups for local news, school/athletics, churches, buy–sell–trade, yard sales, obituaries, and weather alerts.
• Video‑first habits: YouTube for how‑to, outdoors (hunting/fishing), auto repair, and music; Facebook Live for local events and church services; short vertical video (Reels/TikTok) dominates under‑35.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default for families, teams, and church groups; SMS still common.
• When people are active: Evenings (7–10 pm) and lunch (11:30 am–1 pm); Sunday afternoons; spikes during school sports and severe weather.
• Devices and access: Mobile‑first usage; some reliance on Wi‑Fi due to patchy home broadband—snackable, quick‑loading content performs best.
• Regional spillover: Residents follow content from neighboring counties (Cumberland, Russell, Wayne, KY; Pickett, TN); geo‑target a modest radius beyond county lines for reach.

Notes on method

• County‑level platform data is sparse; figures above are modeled from Pew Research Center and DataReportal U.S./rural benchmarks and scaled to Clinton County’s size and age mix (ACS). Treat as directional, not census‑grade counts.