Carter County

Here are the most recent high-level demographics for Carter County, Montana. Figures are rounded; ACS estimates for small counties have notable margins of error.

Population size

• 1,415 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~50 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Age distribution: ~20% under 18; ~57% 18–64; ~23% 65+ (ACS 2018–2022)

Gender

• Male ~52%; Female ~48% (ACS 2018–2022)

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~96%
• American Indian and Alaska Native: ~1–2%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• Black or African American, Asian, other: each <1%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3% (Source: ACS 2018–2022; note Hispanic is an ethnicity and overlaps with race categories)

Households

• ~640 households (ACS 2018–2022)
• Average household size: ~2.2
• Family households: ~60% of all households
• Married-couple households: ~50–55% of all households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–80% (ACS 2018–2022)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Carter County, MT snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: About 1,400 residents spread over a very large area; density is well under 1 person per square mile. County seat: Ekalaka.
• Estimated email users: 900–1,100 residents use email at least monthly. Assumes most adults and some teens use email, consistent with rural Montana adoption patterns.
• Age distribution of email users (approximate):
  • 13–17: 5–7%
  • 18–34: 20–25%
  • 35–54: 30–35%
  • 55–64: 15–20%
  • 65+: 20–25% (county skews older; median age roughly around 50)
• Gender split: Roughly even (about 49–51% each).
• Digital access trends:
  • Reliance on mobile data and fixed wireless is common; wired broadband is limited outside the Ekalaka area and clustered settlements.
  • Cellular coverage becomes spotty away from main roads; many residents check email asynchronously when connectivity is available.
  • Community anchors (library/school in Ekalaka) provide public Wi‑Fi and shared access.
  • Ongoing rural broadband buildouts and satellite services are gradually improving reach, but last‑mile costs remain high due to very low density and long distances between households.

Notes: Figures are reasoned estimates based on county population and typical rural Montana connectivity/adoption patterns.

Below is a pragmatic, county-specific snapshot based on recent national and Montana rural patterns, ACS demographics, and typical carrier footprints in far southeastern Montana. Figures are estimates with ranges to reflect data scarcity at the county level.

Headline takeaways (how Carter County differs from Montana overall)

• Lower smartphone adoption and lower mobile data use per person, driven by older age structure, sparse coverage, and cost sensitivity.
• Heavier tilt toward Verizon/affiliates and AT&T/FirstNet; minimal T-Mobile presence.
• 5G is negligible to absent; 4G LTE is patchy outside the town of Ekalaka and key highways.
• Greater reliance on Wi‑Fi calling over fixed broadband/satellite at home; more basic-phone retention; prepaid plans more common.
• Landline retention and device sharing remain higher than the state average.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude)

• Population base: roughly 1.3–1.5k residents; about 1.1–1.2k adults.
• Any mobile phone (smartphone or basic): 85–92% of adults
  • ≈ 950–1,030 adult mobile users.
  • Statewide MT benchmark: typically low 90s% in populated counties.
• Smartphone users: 68–76% of adults
  • ≈ 760–850 adult smartphone users.
  • Statewide MT benchmark: closer to 80–88% (urban counties pull this up).
• Basic/feature-phone holdouts: 12–20% of adults (notably higher than state average).
• No mobile phone: 8–15% of adults (statewide: lower).
• Teens (13–17): small cohort (≈100–120). Smartphone adoption is high (≈90–95%), but their small numbers limit countywide averages.
• Data consumption per smartphone: about 8–12 GB/month (state average more like 14–20 GB), reflecting weaker coverage and more Wi‑Fi offload.
• Plan mix: prepaid 35–45% (vs ~25–30% statewide), more MVNO use where coverage allows.

Demographic drivers shaping usage

• Older population share is well above the state average, depressing smartphone adoption and app intensity. Many seniors keep flip phones or use smartphones mainly on Wi‑Fi.
• Household incomes are typically below the state median, pushing cost-conscious plans, device longevity, and shared lines.
• Work patterns (ranching, outdoor/ag) favor rugged devices, voice/SMS reliability, and radios; less emphasis on high-bandwidth mobile apps in the field.
• Fewer households with school-age children than the state average; where present, those households show high smartphone/Wi‑Fi use for schoolwork.

Digital infrastructure and coverage realities

• Coverage: Macro LTE sites are sparse and concentrate near Ekalaka and along main corridors (e.g., MT-7 and MT-323). Expect sizable dead zones between ranches and in broken terrain.
• 5G: Very limited to none. If present, it’s likely low-band with minimal speed uplift; no mid-band 5G like you see in Billings, Bozeman, or Missoula.
• Carriers:
  • Verizon (and Verizon-based MVNOs) typically provide the most reliable rural footprint; likely the plurality share (≈55–65%).
  • AT&T/FirstNet presence is meaningful, especially around public-safety sites (≈25–35%).
  • T-Mobile and its MVNOs are minimal (≈5–10%) and often fall back to roaming or lack usable signal outside the town core.
• Roaming/extended networks: Common once you leave highway corridors; some MVNOs restrict or throttle roaming, influencing plan choice.
• Backhaul: Microwave is prevalent on remote sites; fiber backhaul is limited but present to anchor institutions in/near Ekalaka. This constrains capacity and upgrade pace compared with Montana’s urban corridors.
• Workarounds: Wi‑Fi calling at home or shop is routine. Fixed broadband is a mix of fiber in town, fixed wireless, and satellite (including Starlink) outside town; these are crucial to “make mobile work” indoors.
• Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) helps near covered assets but is not blanket coverage; expectations remain voice-first with spotty data in the backcountry.

Usage patterns that diverge from state-level trends

• More voice/SMS-centric behavior; fewer data-heavy, on-the-go apps due to coverage and battery constraints in fringe areas.
• Higher offloading to home/office Wi‑Fi and more asynchronous use (download on Wi‑Fi, use offline).
• Device mix skews older and more rugged; upgrade cycles are longer than in Montana’s cities.
• Landline and radio (VHF/UHF) remain practical complements for ranch operations and areas with no signal.
• Seasonal visitors create far less demand than in Montana’s major tourism corridors, so there’s less incentive for carriers to densify or deploy mid-band 5G.

Outlook (12–24 months)

• Incremental LTE improvements more likely than transformative 5G builds; any 5G will remain low-band with modest speeds.
• The biggest practical gains will come from better home connectivity (fiber extensions, fixed wireless upgrades, satellite), which indirectly improves mobile via Wi‑Fi calling.
• Public-safety and grant-backed projects may add isolated coverage nodes, but overall density will still trail the state.

Data confidence and validation tips

• Treat figures as informed estimates. For local ground-truthing, check: county DES/911 for radio/FirstNet notes; the school district and clinic for fiber/Wi‑Fi calling reliance; carrier coverage maps verified by drive tests; and local ISPs for backhaul/fiber footprints.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for Carter County, MT. Because the county is very small and no platform publishes county-level stats, figures are inferred from ACS demographics for Carter County plus rural-adjusted adoption rates from recent Pew Research social media studies. Treat percentages as approximate ranges.

Quick context

• Population: ~1,400; adults (18+): ~1,100–1,150.
• Estimated adult social media users (any platform, monthly): ~800 (≈70–75% of adults).

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults using monthly)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–65%
• Pinterest: 20–30% (skews female)
• Instagram: 18–25%
• TikTok: 15–22%
• Snapchat: 15–22% (concentrated among teens/20s)
• WhatsApp: 10–15%
• X (Twitter): 8–12%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (low due to industry mix and small labor market)

Age profile of users (share of adult social media users)

• 18–29: ~15%
• 30–49: ~35%
• 50–64: ~30%
• 65+: ~20% Note: Teens (13–17) are a small share of the population but have high usage; they cluster on Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok.

Gender breakdown

• Population is roughly balanced; user base is ~50/50 overall.
• Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and Reddit/X.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Montana counties (very likely here)

• Facebook is the local hub: county and town pages, school sports, church and community events, buy/sell/trade groups, road/weather/wildfire updates. Messenger is the default for 1:1 and small-group coordination.
• YouTube use is heavy for how-to content (ranching/AG, equipment repair, hunting/fishing, DIY, weather), plus music and sports highlights.
• Younger residents favor Snapchat for daily communication; TikTok/Instagram for short-form entertainment and trends; posting volume spikes around school events and sports seasons.
• Event-driven spikes: county fair/rodeos, hunting season, major storms, fire season, road closures.
• Content style: practical, local, and low-bandwidth friendly (photos/albums, short clips). Trust is placed in known local admins and organizations more than in brand pages.
• Advertising that works: simple creative with clear local tie-ins (hours, location, sponsorships), posted into community groups; boosted posts outperform elaborate campaigns. Target evenings and early mornings.
• Cross-posting behavior: Facebook post first, then share to Instagram; video often uploaded to YouTube and linked on Facebook.
• Connectivity constraints and older age skew favor fewer platforms per person; many maintain just Facebook+Messenger and YouTube.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• Adult counts from recent ACS estimates; platform percentages derived from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 social media adoption benchmarks, adjusted for rural audiences and Carter County’s older age structure. Given the small population, treat figures as directional with ±5–10 percentage-point uncertainty.