Piscataquis County

Key demographics — Piscataquis County, Maine (latest U.S. Census Bureau data; ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates unless noted)

• Population: ~16,800 residents
• Age:
  • Median age: ~52 years
  • Under 18: ~17%
  • 18 to 64: ~56%
  • 65 and over: ~27%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50%
  • Male: ~50%
• Race/Ethnicity:
  • White alone: ~95%
  • Two or more races: ~2%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.8%
  • Black or African American: ~0.4%
  • Asian: ~0.3%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2%
• Households and housing:
  • Households: ~7,600–7,700
  • Average household size: ~2.1
  • Family households: ~58%; nonfamily: ~42%
  • Owner-occupied rate: ~78%
  • Housing units: ~14,500–15,000 (high share of seasonal/vacant units)
  • Median household income: ~$50,000–$52,000
  • Poverty rate (persons): ~16%

Insights:

• One of the smallest and oldest counties demographically in Maine, with a median age around 52 and more than a quarter of residents 65+
• Very high share of White residents and low racial/ethnic diversity
• Small households, high homeownership, and a large seasonal housing presence
• Income and poverty metrics indicate modest household resources relative to state and national medians

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 (5-year); 2020 Decennial Census (context).

• Context: Piscataquis County, ME is Maine’s most sparsely populated county (pop. ~16,650; density ~4.2 people/sq mi), which makes last‑mile connectivity challenging.
• Digital access: About 90% of households have a computer or smartphone and roughly 80% subscribe to home broadband (ACS 2018–2022). Around 10% of households report no home internet. Fiber and 100/20 Mbps coverage have expanded since 2021, but unorganized territories and remote townships remain patchy; service is strongest along main corridors and town centers.
• Estimated email users: ~12,100 adults (≈88% of ~13,700 adults) use email at least monthly. Including teens adds ~1,700 additional users, bringing total email users to roughly 13,800 countywide.
• Age distribution of adult email users (share of users; count in parentheses):
  • 18–29: 11% (~1,330)
  • 30–49: 25% (~3,025)
  • 50–64: 29% (~3,510)
  • 65+: 35% (~4,235) Older skew reflects the county’s high senior share but still strong email adoption among retirees.
• Gender split among adult email users: 49% male (5,930) and 51% female (6,170), mirroring the population profile.
• Insight: With low population density, email remains a primary, low‑bandwidth channel for communication and services; improving broadband reach (especially fiber) will mainly lift speeds and reliability rather than basic email adoption.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Piscataquis County, Maine

Context and baseline

• Population and geography: 16,800 residents (2020 Census) spread across roughly 4,378 square miles, making it Maine’s least populous and one of its most rural counties (effectively 100% rural by Census/OMB classification). Population density is about 4 people per square mile, with the largest service hubs in Dover-Foxcroft, Milo, Guilford, and Greenville.
• Demographics: Older-than-average age structure; median age about 51 (ACS 2022), with roughly 27% aged 65+. Median household income is about $51,000 (ACS 2022), below the statewide median.

User estimates (modeled from national/rural adoption rates and county age structure; counts rounded)

• Adult cellphone users (of any kind): approximately 13,000–13,500 out of roughly 14,000 adults. This reflects very high basic mobile phone adoption even in rural, older areas, albeit a bit below urban Maine.
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 11,000–12,000. The county’s older age mix pulls overall smartphone penetration below the statewide rate.
  • 18–34: ~95%+ smartphone adoption; ~2,700–2,900 users
  • 35–64: ~85–90% smartphone adoption; ~6,000–6,500 users
  • 65+: ~60–70% smartphone adoption; ~2,300–2,700 users
• Smartphone-only internet users (no home broadband, rely on cellular): approximately 2,000–2,500 adults. This share is higher than the statewide average due to limited fixed-broadband options in sparsely populated tracts and lower median incomes.

How usage differs from the state level

• Lower smartphone penetration: County-wide smartphone adoption is estimated 5–8 percentage points below Maine’s overall rate, driven by the higher share of residents 65+ and the fully rural settlement pattern.
• Higher smartphone-only reliance: The county’s smartphone-only share is estimated several points above the state average. Households without reliable wired broadband substitute with cellular hotspots and unlimited plans more often than in coastal or southern Maine counties.
• Heavier prepaid/discount-plan mix: A larger share of users rely on prepaid and budget MVNO plans than the Maine average, reflecting lower incomes and the need to manage spotty coverage across carriers by switching or stacking plans.
• Greater variability in service quality: Signal reliability and speeds vary more by location than in southern Maine. Users report good LTE/5G low-band performance in town centers but experience drop-offs within short distances into forested or hilly terrain.

Demographic breakdown highlights

• Age: The 65+ cohort is large and less likely to own a smartphone; those who do are more likely to use larger-screen devices and keep them longer before upgrading, extending average device lifecycles. Younger adults (and seasonal workers) skew usage toward data-heavy apps and tethering.
• Income: Lower-income households show higher smartphone-only dependence and are more price sensitive, with tighter data management and more frequent plan changes.
• Seasonal dynamics: Summer traffic around Moosehead Lake/Greenville and along US-15 and SR-6 brings temporary load spikes that are more pronounced than statewide seasonal effects, stressing limited backhaul and small-cell footprints.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (practical, county-specific points)

• Coverage pattern: LTE is the de facto baseline across US-2, US-6, US-11, and US-15 corridors and in town centers (Dover-Foxcroft, Milo, Guilford, Greenville). Large forested tracts and unorganized territories have persistent dead zones or fringe service. This spatial fragmentation is materially greater than the Maine average.
• 5G availability: Low-band 5G is present in and around town centers and along primary corridors; mid-band capacity is sparse and mostly absent outside hubs. In practical use, many residents see LTE-equivalent performance outside towns.
• Backhaul constraints: Limited fiber middle-mile reaching only select communities constrains peak mobile throughput and consistency. Compared to southern Maine, carriers have fewer sectors per site and longer microwave or fiber runs, increasing congestion sensitivity.
• Redundancy: Single-tower dependency is common in outlying areas; power outages or maintenance can interrupt service for entire valleys or lakeside communities more often than in the state’s more built-up counties.

Implications for planning and service

• Adoption growth will come primarily from upgrades (feature phone to smartphone) among older users and from better mid-band 5G and fiber-fed backhaul in town centers; raw subscriber growth is modest given population trends.
• The county’s above-average smartphone-only reliance and thin fixed broadband options mean mobile networks shoulder a larger share of home internet usage than in most of Maine, so capacity upgrades in hub towns and along commuter/tourism corridors yield outsized benefits.
• Programs that extend fiber middle-mile/last-mile (and enable carrier backhaul leases) will translate more directly into measurable improvements in mobile experience here than in already-fibered southern counties.

Notes on method and sources

• Population, age, and income statistics are from the U.S. Census (2020) and ACS (2022).
• Mobile adoption estimates adapt Pew Research Center’s national smartphone/cellphone ownership by age and rurality to the county’s age structure; smartphone-only estimates reflect national/rural patterns adjusted for local broadband scarcity. These are modeled estimates, not carrier subscription counts.

Piscataquis County, ME social media snapshot (2025, best-available estimates modeled from US Census/ACS age mix and Pew Research Center usage by age/rural residency)

• Population baseline: ~16.9k residents; ~14.5k are age 13+ (the group most likely to use social media)
• Total social media users (13+): ~10.4k (≈72% of 13+; ≈62% of total residents)

Usage by age (share of each age group using at least one social platform)

• 13–17: 92–95% (near-universal; Snapchat/Instagram/TikTok dominant)
• 18–29: ~88%
• 30–49: ~80–82%
• 50–64: ~66–68%
• 65+: ~45–50% (Facebook and YouTube lead)

Gender breakdown

• Overall share of social media users: ~53% women, ~47% men
• Adoption among 13+: Women ~74%; men ~69% (women slightly more active on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men skew higher on YouTube/Reddit/X)

Most-used platforms (percent of adults in the county who use each platform; people use multiple platforms)

• Facebook: ~64% (largest single platform; strongest in 35+ and 50+)
• YouTube: ~61% (how‑to, repairs, outdoor content; cross‑generational)
• Instagram: ~28% (skews <35; local businesses, events)
• Pinterest: ~25% (heavily female; home, crafts, recipes)
• TikTok: ~21% (concentrated <35; short local/outdoor/DIY clips)
• Snapchat: ~17% (teens/younger adults; messaging-first)
• X/Twitter: ~12% (news/politics; small but active)
• LinkedIn: ~11% (professional use; limited in rural trades)
• Reddit: ~9% (male-skewed; hobby/gaming, hunting/fishing subs)
• Nextdoor: ~8% (less coverage; town Facebook Groups fill this role)

Platform user gender mix (share of each platform’s users in-county)

• Facebook ~56% women; Instagram ~60% women; TikTok ~58% women; Pinterest ~78% women
• YouTube ~54% men; Reddit ~68% men; X ~60% men; Snapchat ~55% women; LinkedIn ~54% men

Behavioral trends and use cases

• Facebook as the digital town square: town/government notices, school and sports updates, local yard-sale and “what’s happening” groups, obituaries; Facebook Marketplace heavily used for equipment, vehicles, and furniture
• Community groups drive reach: posts shared into town and regional groups (Dover‑Foxcroft, Greenville/Moosehead Lake, Milo, Guilford) outperform standalone pages; trusted local admins and civic orgs act as micro‑influencers
• Video is practical: YouTube for repairs, small-engine and homestead projects; short vertical video (Reels/TikTok) for local scenes, outdoor recreation, and business promos
• Messaging first: Facebook Messenger is the default for appointment requests and customer service; Snapchat DMs/streaks dominate teen communication
• Time-of-day and seasonal rhythms: evening posting (6–9 pm) performs best; engagement peaks around school calendars, summer tourism in the Moosehead Lake area, hunting season, town meetings, and storm/road updates
• Ad targeting that works: tight radius targeting (10–25 miles) around Dover‑Foxcroft and Greenville; boosted Facebook posts and event ads outperform generic display; creative with clear local cues (town names, landmarks, seasonality) increases CTR
• Access considerations: patchy cellular/broadband in outlying areas favors lighter, quickly loading content; cross-posting the same message to Facebook + Instagram increases reach without assuming high-speed video access

Notes

• Figures are county-specific estimates derived by applying current national/rural-by-age platform adoption rates to Piscataquis County’s older-skewing age structure; expect ±3–5 percentage points variance at the platform level and slightly higher for smaller platforms.