Dukes County

Which source/year would you like me to use for the figures?

• Most recent ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023) — best for small counties like Dukes (more measures, modeled estimates)
• 2020 Decennial Census — exact population count, fewer demographics

I can provide both if you prefer.

Dukes County (Martha’s Vineyard) snapshot

• Population: ~21,000 residents; density ~200 people per sq. mile. Summer population can exceed 100,000, stressing networks.

Estimated email users

• 17,000–19,000 residents (roughly 85–90% of people age 13+).

Age distribution of email users (approx.)

• 13–24: 3.0–3.5k (very high adoption, ~95%+).
• 25–44: 5–6k (near-universal use).
• 45–64: 5–6k (very high use).
• 65+: 4–5k (slightly lower adoption, ~85–90%).

Gender split

• County population ~51% female, 49% male; email use is near parity (both ~85–90%+ among 13+).

Digital access and connectivity trends

• Broadband at home: ~85–90% of households; computer ownership ~90%.
• Smartphone adoption: ~85–90% of adults; ~10–12% are smartphone‑only for internet.
• Island geography creates patchy cellular coverage in some up‑island areas; fiber/cable connectivity stronger in town centers, with ongoing fiber expansion projects.
• Seasonal influx and remote work have increased peak‑time demand for bandwidth and public Wi‑Fi in town hubs.

Notes: Figures are estimates synthesized from recent ACS/Census county metrics and national tech adoption studies (e.g., Pew) applied to local demographics.

Below is a planning-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Dukes County, MA (Martha’s Vineyard and Gosnold), with emphasis on where local patterns diverge from Massachusetts statewide norms.

County context that drives usage

• Small, older year‑round population (~21,000 residents; adults ~17,000) with very large summer influx (tourism, seasonal homeowners, day-trippers).
• Insular geography, conservation land, and strict siting/zoning constraints affect tower placement and radio propagation.
• Wired broadband options are fewer than on the mainland in some neighborhoods, which nudges some households toward cellular data as a primary connection.

User estimates

• Year‑round resident mobile users: ~15,000–18,000 unique adult users. Rationale: adult population ~17k with high but slightly below‑state smartphone take‑up due to older age profile.
• Resident smartphone penetration: roughly 85–90% of adults (a few points below MA’s ~90%+), with a steeper drop among 65+.
• Peak summer devices on island: commonly 70,000–110,000+ unique devices on the busiest days, driven by tourists and seasonal homes. That’s roughly 4–6x the resident base, a swing far larger than seen in most MA counties.
• Cellular-as-primary internet: meaningfully higher than the state average. Expect a mid–single‑ to high–single‑digit share of households relying mainly on cellular data (vs roughly low single digits statewide), especially in areas with weaker cable/DSL options or seasonal/temporary housing.
• Prepaid usage: modestly higher than the statewide mix among seasonal and service‑sector workers; postpaid dominates among year‑round, higher‑income households and second‑home owners.

Demographic patterns (how usage differs from state-level)

• Older residents: Lower smartphone adoption and heavier reliance on voice/SMS than the MA average; more pronounced “basic phone” or limited‑app use among 70+.
• Seasonal workforce and immigrant communities (notably Brazilian Portuguese speakers): Heavy use of WhatsApp/VoIP and Wi‑Fi offload; above‑average prepaid plan penetration.
• Youth/teens: Similar or higher smartphone adoption than statewide, but with more pronounced coverage‑driven behavior (e.g., congregating where signal is strong or Wi‑Fi is free).
• Income and housing: Higher incidence of cellular‑only or mobile‑first internet among renters, shared housing, and seasonal units compared with MA overall.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage distribution:
  • Strongest multi‑carrier service in down‑island population centers (Vineyard Haven/Tisbury, Oak Bluffs, Edgartown), ferry terminals, main roads, and near the airport.
  • Noticeable gaps and weaker indoor coverage in up‑island towns (Chilmark, Aquinnah, parts of West Tisbury) due to terrain, conservation areas, and tower siting limits.
  • Gosnold (Cuttyhunk) has sparse, carrier‑limited coverage and frequent performance variability.
• 5G status:
  • Low‑band 5G is present in and around main towns for all three national carriers; mid‑band 5G capacity is limited and spotty; mmWave is rare to non‑existent.
  • Practical experience often resembles “enhanced LTE” speeds, with congestion during summer peaks.
• Backhaul and resilience:
  • Reliant on undersea fiber and limited island backhaul routes; redundancy exists but is not on par with mainland metro areas.
  • Storms and ferry/visitor surges can expose single‑points‑of‑failure and cause temporary capacity issues despite generators at many macro sites.
• Density and small cells:
  • Macro sites are concentrated near population centers; small‑cell deployments exist but are fewer than in dense MA metros due to zoning aesthetics, lower year‑round demand, and backhaul constraints.
• Public Wi‑Fi and offload:
  • Heavily used in town centers, hospitality venues, ferry terminals, libraries, and beaches during peak season to relieve cellular congestion.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence and multi‑band LMR remain important; coverage initiatives tend to focus on up‑island gaps and ferry corridors.

Key ways Dukes County diverges from the Massachusetts norm

• Extreme seasonality: Device counts and traffic spike multiple-fold in summer—well beyond swings seen in mainland counties—creating recurring capacity pinch points.
• Coverage variability: Larger and more persistent dead zones, especially up‑island and in Gosnold, versus near‑ubiquitous coverage in much of MA.
• Higher cellular‑only reliance: A larger share of households using mobile data as their primary/only internet connection than the state average, tied to housing type, seasonal occupancy, and limited wired options in pockets.
• Older population effects: Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration and different usage mix (more voice/SMS) compared with MA’s younger, urbanized counties.
• Siting/backhaul constraints: More stringent zoning/aesthetics and island backhaul realities slow the pace of densification and advanced 5G rollout relative to many MA metros.

Notes and data confidence

• Figures above are estimates synthesized from known statewide adoption patterns, the county’s age/seasonality profile, and typical coastal/rural infrastructure constraints. For planning-grade precision, validate with:
  • ACS/US Census (table S2801 Internet Subscriptions) for county-level cellular-only vs broadband.
  • Commonwealth/MassBroadband Institute and OpenCape for backhaul/fiber routes.
  • FCC mobile coverage maps plus on-island drive tests (Ookla, RootMetrics, or custom) for signal quality and 5G bands by carrier.
  • Seasonal traffic records (ferry/airport) to calibrate peak device counts and capacity planning.

Below is an estimate-based snapshot built from Pew Research Center U.S. social media benchmarks (2023–2024), Massachusetts digital adoption, and Dukes County’s age mix. Precise county-level platform stats aren’t published; ranges reflect adjustments for the county’s older median age and strong seasonal influx.

Quick user stats (year‑round residents ≈21k)

• Estimated residents using social media monthly: 12k–15k (≈60–70% of total population; ≈70–80% of ages 13+)
• Daily users: 8k–11k (≈40–55% of total population)
• Average platforms per user: 3–4
• Seasonal effect: May–Sept visitor surge can double or triple local engagement on Instagram/TikTok and in Facebook Groups (driven by tourism, events, ferry/weather updates)

Age profile (share using at least one platform)

• 13–17: 90–95%; heavy on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram
• 18–29: 90%+; Instagram, YouTube, TikTok; Snapchat common
• 30–49: 80–90%; Facebook, Instagram, YouTube; some Nextdoor and WhatsApp
• 50–64: 70–80%; Facebook, YouTube; Pinterest among women
• 65+: 45–60%; Facebook, YouTube; rising Nextdoor use

Gender breakdown (estimated among active users)

• Female: 50–55%
• Male: 45–50%
• Platform skews: Pinterest and Snapchat skew female; Reddit and X skew male; Facebook slightly female

Most‑used platforms (estimated monthly reach among residents 13+)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70% (Facebook Groups are central to local info)
• Instagram: 45–55% (spikes in summer; Reels/Stories)
• TikTok: 30–40% (youth/visitor‑driven discovery)
• Snapchat: 25–35% (teens/young adults)
• Nextdoor: 20–30% (above U.S. average; neighborhood/town updates)
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (notably among Brazilian/Portuguese‑speaking workers/families)
• Pinterest: 25–35% (home, craft, food; skew female)
• LinkedIn: 20–30% (remote/hybrid professionals, seasonal workers)
• X (Twitter): 15–25% (news, storms, transport alerts)
• Reddit: 15–25% (tech, hobbies, regional subs)

Behavioral trends to know

• Hyper‑local hubs: Facebook Groups and Nextdoor for ferry/cancellation alerts, storms, town meetings, lost & found, housing/jobs, “Buy Nothing,” and yard sales.
• Seasonal content waves: Summer drives sharp growth in visual posts (beaches, dining, events). Local businesses rely on Instagram Reels and TikTok for discovery; geotags like Edgartown, Oak Bluffs, Vineyard Haven trend.
• Real‑time utility: Spikes around weather events, power outages, and ferry operations; official pages often use Facebook first.
• Community issues: High engagement on affordability/housing, coastal access, conservation, offshore wind, and service availability; long comment threads in FB Groups/Nextdoor.
• Messaging backbones: iMessage and WhatsApp group chats coordinate shift work, childcare, and events; WhatsApp strong in immigrant communities.
• Older adults: Facebook remains the default; YouTube for how‑tos and local meeting replays; gradual adoption of Nextdoor.
• Youth patterns: Snapchat for daily communication; TikTok and Instagram for local spots and UGC; minimal posting to Facebook.