Barnstable County

Here are key, current demographics for Barnstable County, Massachusetts (Cape Cod), using the latest American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5-year estimates:

• Population: about 232,000
• Age:
  • Median age: ~54.5 years
  • Under 18: ~16%
  • 18 to 64: ~51%
  • 65 and over: ~33%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~52%
  • Male: ~48%
• Race/ethnicity (share of total population):
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~86–87%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~5%
  • Black or African American: ~2–3%
  • Asian: ~1–2%
  • Two or more races: ~4%
  • Other races combined: ~1%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~108,000
  • Average household size: ~2.17
  • Family households: ~56%
  • Nonfamily households: ~44%
  • Households with children under 18: ~21%
  • Householders 65+ living alone: ~16%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

Barnstable County (Cape Cod) snapshot

• Population: ~230,000; median age ~54 (older than MA average).
• Estimated email users: ~180,000–195,000 residents (≈80–85% of total), slightly below statewide penetration due to older age mix.

Age adoption (approx.)

• 18–34: 95–99%
• 35–64: 94–97%
• 65+: 80–88% Net effect: strong overall usage, with the large 65+ cohort pulling averages down modestly.

Gender split

• Population is ~52% female, 48% male; email usage rates are near-parity, yielding roughly a 51/49 female/male split among users.

Digital access and trends

• Broadband subscription: ~88–92% of occupied households (a bit below MA average); gaps more common on the Outer Cape and in low-density areas.
• Infrastructure: OpenCape provides a regional fiber backbone (broad public/enterprise reach; limited residential FTTH). Comcast/Xfinity dominates residential cable; 5G/LTE coverage improving along Route 6/28, with some dead zones near the National Seashore.
• Seasonal dynamics: population roughly doubles in summer, increasing network congestion and highlighting last‑mile limitations.
• Density/connectivity: ~580 residents per square mile; the peninsula’s elongated, coastal geography raises buildout costs and redundancy challenges.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns

High-level differences vs Massachusetts

• Older, seasonal market: A much older year‑round population and large summer influx of visitors create a bimodal demand pattern (quiet winters, heavy summer peaks) unlike most of the state’s steadier, urban-centric usage.
• Slightly lower smartphone penetration: County-wide smartphone ownership is a few points below the state average because of its high share of residents 65+.
• Coverage and capacity constraints: More dead zones and indoor coverage issues than metro Massachusetts due to conservation land, coastal topography, and stricter siting/permitting.
• Verizon-centric ecosystem: Verizon and Verizon‑based MVNOs (notably Xfinity Mobile) skew stronger than statewide because Comcast is the dominant fixed ISP on the Cape and Verizon’s legacy coverage is perceived as most reliable along the coast.
• Summer congestion and international usage: Visitor surges double or triple active devices; seasonal workers and tourists drive higher use of prepaid/MVNO plans and international calling/messaging than the state average.
• Fewer fiber-to-the-home options: Little to no Verizon Fios; reliance on Comcast cable and the OpenCape middle‑mile means fewer converged fixed–mobile bundles than in Greater Boston, but strong uptake of cable‑MVNO mobile bundles.

User estimates

• Year‑round resident mobile users: Approximately 195,000–210,000 unique users among residents age 13+, reflecting 93–95% mobile phone ownership. This is slightly below Massachusetts overall due to age mix.
• Smartphone owners: About 170,000–185,000 (roughly 84–88% of residents age 13+). Massachusetts statewide is typically near or above 90% for adults.
• Peak seasonal presence: On peak summer weekends, total unique mobile users physically present in the county can reach 450,000–520,000 when adding visitors to residents, 2–2.5x the winter baseline. This drives short, intense capacity demand that is uncommon elsewhere in the state.
• Platform and plan mix:
  • iOS share: Directionally high (roughly mid‑60s percent), likely a bit above the state average because of older/higher‑income second‑home owners and Northeast tourism.
  • Carrier skew: Verizon leads (including Xfinity Mobile on Verizon’s network); AT&T is solid; T‑Mobile has improved 5G but still sees more coverage gaps toward the Outer Cape than in metro MA.
  • Postpaid vs prepaid: Year‑round users lean postpaid; prepaid/MVNO share rises in summer with seasonal workers and visitors.

Demographic usage patterns that matter for mobile

• Age structure: Roughly one‑third of residents are 65+ (vs ~18% statewide). Smartphone ownership among seniors is lower than younger cohorts, and usage skews toward voice/text, telehealth, and messaging with family rather than heavy mobile gaming or commuter streaming.
• Income bifurcation: Median household income is below the state average, but the presence of affluent second‑home owners creates a split market:
  • Premium flagship devices and iOS dominate among second‑home owners and tourists.
  • Cost‑sensitive service‑industry workers and retirees are more likely to use budget Androids, MVNOs, and prepaid.
• Language and international needs: Hospitality and seasonal labor bring above‑average demand for international calling, WhatsApp/Telegram, and short‑term/prepaid SIMs relative to statewide norms.
• ACP wind‑down effects: The end of Affordable Connectivity Program subsidies has a visible impact on service‑industry households and seniors who were using discounted mobile plans or hotspots; expect plan downgrades and churn to lower-cost MVNOs more than in affluent Boston suburbs.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• 5G footprint:
  • Strongest along the Route 6 corridor and in larger towns (Hyannis, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Falmouth, Sandwich, Mashpee, Bourne), with mid‑band 5G from Verizon (C‑band) and T‑Mobile (2.5 GHz).
  • Patchier on the Outer Cape (Eastham, Wellfleet, Truro, Provincetown) and in conservation areas where tower siting is constrained by the Cape Cod National Seashore, historic districts, and coastal permitting.
  • Millimeter‑wave small cells are far less common than in Boston/Cambridge; capacity relies on mid‑band and LTE.
• Indoor coverage: Older housing stock and coastal topography mean more reliance on Wi‑Fi calling and femtocells than in most of Massachusetts. LTE fallback indoors is common.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • OpenCape’s regional fiber backbone provides robust middle‑mile connectivity to municipalities, schools, health care, and some businesses; mobile carriers use it where available for backhaul.
  • Residential fiber-to-the-home options are limited; Comcast cable dominates fixed broadband. This strengthens Xfinity Mobile adoption and weakens Verizon’s fixed–mobile bundling compared with Fios markets.
• Fixed wireless alternatives: T‑Mobile and Verizon 5G Home are available in some town centers; Starlink sees niche adoption among boaters and in fringe coverage areas.
• Resiliency: Nor’easters and summer thunderstorms can produce multi‑day power outages. Some cell sites have limited generator backup; carriers periodically deploy COWs/COLTs for storms and large summer events. This resilience challenge is more pronounced than in inland urban MA.
• Public safety and coastal use: Demand for reliable E‑911, marine VHF interoperability, and coastal coverage for recreational boating is higher than the state average; dead zones near beaches and dunes remain a frequent complaint.

Implications and actionable takeaways tailored to Barnstable County

• Capacity planning must be seasonal: Engineer for peak July/August traffic with temporary capacity (COWs, additional carriers on existing structures, festival DAS) and optimize off‑season opex.
• Focused coverage remediation: Prioritize Outer Cape gaps, beach approaches, Route 6 segments, and indoor solutions (small cells, repeaters) in town centers and senior housing.
• Lean into Verizon‑based MVNO demand and iOS skew: Retail mixes, accessory stock, and support should reflect higher iPhone and Verizon‑network usage than the state average.
• Serve international and prepaid needs in summer: Stock travel SIMs, eSIM onboarding, and multilingual support in Hyannis, Falmouth, Provincetown.
• Partner with OpenCape and municipalities: Where feasible, leverage OpenCape for backhaul and streamline local permitting to add small cells without impacting historic character.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Population baselines use recent Census/ACS trends and typical Cape summer visitation estimates; smartphone and teen adoption rates draw on recent Pew/industry figures adjusted for Barnstable’s age profile.
• Carrier share and OS split are directional, based on coverage conditions, ISP presence, and observed New England market patterns; exact shares vary by town and season.

Social media in Barnstable County, MA — short breakdown (estimates for 2024–2025)

High-level snapshot

• Population: ~230–236k residents; ~200–205k are 13+.
• Social media users (13+): ~160–170k (about 78–82% penetration). Lower than MA average due to older age mix.

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

• YouTube: 70–75% — broad utility (how-to, local news, fishing/boating, weather).
• Facebook: 58–65% — dominant for local communities, events, and small business updates.
• Instagram: 32–38% — food, tourism, local creators; younger adults.
• TikTok: 20–26% — growing with visitors and teens; below MA urban areas.
• Pinterest: 18–24% — strong among women (home, crafts, coastal decor).
• LinkedIn: 20–25% — healthcare, tech/remote professionals, nonprofits.
• Nextdoor: 10–15% — neighborhoods, town notices, contractor referrals.
• X (Twitter): 10–14% — news, sports, transit/traffic updates.
• Snapchat: 12–16% — teens/young adults; lower than state urban centers.

Age makeup of social users (share within social media user base; estimates)

• 13–17: 5–7% — heavy on TikTok/Snapchat; Instagram primary; Facebook minimal.
• 18–34: 18–22% — Instagram/TikTok core; YouTube universal; some Snapchat.
• 35–54: 30–35% — Facebook + Instagram; YouTube universal; Pinterest popular.
• 55–64: 18–22% — Facebook + YouTube; some Pinterest/LinkedIn.
• 65+: 20–25% — Facebook + YouTube; lower on Instagram/TikTok; higher Nextdoor use.

Gender breakdown (within social users; estimates)

• Female: ~53–55%
• Male: ~45–47% Notes: Women over-index on Facebook Groups, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index in YouTube, X, Reddit-like forums, and hobby groups (fishing, boating).

Behavioral trends and local nuances

• Facebook Groups rule local info: town alerts, storm/outage updates, school notices, beach/parking, yard sales, and civic debates. High comment/re-share behavior.
• Seasonal swing (May–Sept): spikes in Instagram/TikTok (tourism content, hospitality promos). Local businesses increase posting frequency; event calendars and reels outperform static posts.
• Practical, hyperlocal content wins: tide charts, ferry/bridge traffic, weather/Nor’easter prep, beach conditions, wildlife sightings, dining specials, and live music schedules.
• Community trust cues matter: posts featuring recognizable landmarks, local staff, or partnerships with nonprofits/town pages see higher engagement.
• Video first: short vertical video (15–45s) on IG Reels/TikTok; how-to and explainer video on YouTube; Facebook favors reels and photo carousels from local events.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger widely used for reservations and customer service; WhatsApp pockets exist among seasonal workers.
• Nextdoor use cases: contractor recommendations, lost-and-found, HOA/town notices. Skews 45+ homeowners.
• Timing: morning (7–10am) and early evening (5–8pm) engagement; weekend peaks tied to events and dining.
• Ad targeting tips: older homeowners (home services, healthcare, financial, travel/retirement), outdoor interests (boating, fishing, golf), and seasonal visitor lookalikes; emphasize proximity and availability.

Methodology and confidence

• Figures are modeled estimates using national platform adoption (Pew and similar), adjusted for Barnstable’s older age profile, suburban/rural mix, and observed regional patterns. Exact county-level platform data are rarely published; treat percentages as directional ranges.