Chouteau County

Do you have a preferred data vintage/source (2020 Decennial Census counts vs. latest ACS 5-year estimates, 2019–2023)? I can provide the most recent ACS figures (with margins of error if you want) or stick to 2020 Census counts for population and use ACS for age, race/ethnicity, and households.

Chouteau County, MT snapshot (pop ~5,700; density ~1–2 people per sq. mile)

Estimated email users

• 3,400–4,000 residents use email at least monthly.
• Basis: rural MT rates suggest roughly 70–85% of households have internet/computer access; among internet users, 90%+ use email. Some teens use school accounts.

Age distribution among email users (county skews older)

• 18–34: ~22–27%
• 35–54: ~30–35%
• 55+: ~38–45%

Gender split

• Population is roughly even (~51% male, 49% female); email usage rates are similar by gender, so users mirror this split.

Digital access and connectivity trends

• Best connectivity in towns (Fort Benton, Big Sandy); outlying farms/ranches rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
• Mobile broadband stronger along major corridors (e.g., US‑87/MT‑200) with weaker coverage in breaks/coulee terrain away from highways.
• Public anchors (libraries, schools) provide key Wi‑Fi access points.
• Ongoing state/federal investments (e.g., ARPA/BEAD-funded builds via regional co‑ops) are expanding fiber in and between towns, gradually improving speeds and reliability.
• Low population density raises last‑mile costs, so adoption lags urban MT but is trending upward as new fiber and fixed‑wireless projects come online.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Chouteau County, Montana

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, 2023–2024 conditions)

• Total residents: about 5,700–5,900.
• People using a mobile phone: roughly 4,5oo–4,7oo (≈78–82% of the total population), using rural U.S. ownership rates applied to the county’s age mix.
• Smartphone users: about 4,0oo–4,2oo (≈68–72% of the total population; ≈88–90% of mobile phone users).
• Feature/flip-phone users: about 4oo–6oo, disproportionately older adults and residents in fringe coverage areas.
• Household reliance on mobile-only (no landline): lower than statewide; landlines persist in outlying ranch/farm areas where indoor cellular is unreliable.

Demographic breakdown (how it differs from Montana overall)

• Older age structure
  • 65+ share is several points higher than the state average, pulling down smartphone adoption. Estimated smartphone adoption among 65+ in the county: about 60–65% (vs ~68–72% statewide).
  • Younger adult (18–34) share is smaller than statewide; that group is near-saturation for smartphones but is a smaller base in Chouteau.
• Native American population
  • Native American share is meaningfully higher than the state average. Coverage gaps at the edges of reservation-adjacent areas and lower median incomes lead to more prepaid plans, shared devices/hotspots, and slower upgrade cycles than statewide averages.
• Income and plan mix
  • Median income is below the statewide median, so there’s a higher mix of prepaid and budget Android devices, longer device replacement cycles, and more price-sensitive data use. The 2024 lapse of ACP support likely increased cost pressure locally more than in urban counties.
• Work patterns
  • Agriculture/ranching drives usage of rugged devices, boosters, and hotspots in vehicles and equipment. Voice, SMS, and push-to-talk-style coordination remain more prominent than in cities.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (county specifics)

• Network footprint
  • Coverage concentrates along US-87 (Great Falls–Fort Benton–Loma–Big Sandy–Havre corridor) and state routes to Geraldine/Highwood. The Missouri River Breaks and coulees see persistent dead zones.
  • Macro-tower spacing is wide; indoor signal is frequently weak in metal buildings without boosters.
• Carriers and radio layers
  • Verizon generally offers the most consistent rural footprint; AT&T is solid along main corridors but patchier south/east of towns; T-Mobile’s 600 MHz low-band improves reach along the highway spine but falls off faster off-route.
  • 5G is mainly low-band near towns; mid-band 5G (capacity) is sparse or absent. Many users remain on LTE most of the time.
• Performance expectations
  • Town centers: typical 20–80 Mbps down on modern devices, higher when mid-band is present.
  • Between towns: 5–20 Mbps, with congestion and deprioritization more noticeable than in urban Montana.
• Backhaul and wired anchors
  • Co-op fiber and telco backhaul reach Big Sandy, Fort Benton, and some rural exchanges, enabling solid LTE/low-band 5G in those pockets.
  • Outside fiber footprints, carriers lean on microwave backhaul; peak-hour capacity can dip.
• Alternatives and complements
  • Fixed wireless and satellite (e.g., Starlink) fill many gaps for home internet; residents commonly rely on Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters indoors. Public/library Wi‑Fi is an important fallback in towns.

Trends that differ from the Montana state picture

• Lower smartphone and 5G adoption: Smartphone share of the total population is several points below the state average; 5G usage is mostly low-band with limited mid-band capacity, so the step-up from LTE is smaller than in cities like Billings, Bozeman, or Missoula.
• Carrier choice skews more rural-centric: Verizon retains a larger share due to coverage resilience off highways; T-Mobile’s statewide growth is slower to manifest here away from the US‑87 corridor.
• More reliance on LTE-only and older devices: Upgrade cycles run longer than statewide, with more flip phones among seniors and in fringe coverage.
• Higher dependence on Wi‑Fi calling, boosters, and dual solutions: Compared with urban Montana, more households use boosters, Wi‑Fi calling, dual-SIM/hotspots, or satellite messaging for backcountry reliability.
• Landline persistence: A greater fraction of households keep landlines than the state average because of indoor cellular reliability concerns.
• Price sensitivity heightened: With lower median incomes and the 2024 ACP lapse, prepaid uptake and plan downgrades rose more noticeably than in urban counties.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• Estimates derive from the county’s population and age mix (Census/ACS), combined with recent rural U.S./Montana mobile ownership and smartphone adoption benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research, FCC/industry coverage patterns). Given sparse local sampling, figures are best read as ranges (±10%) and directional comparisons to statewide trends.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot for Chouteau County, MT. Because true county-level platform stats aren’t published, figures are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social-media benchmarks, rural usage patterns, and the county’s older-skewing age profile. Treat ranges as estimates.

Population and user stats

• Residents: roughly 5,800–6,000; adults ~4,500–4,700.
• Adults using at least one social platform: about 70–80% (≈3,200–3,800 adults).

Most-used platforms (adults, modeled share)

• YouTube: ~70–80% of adults
• Facebook: ~60–70%
• Instagram: ~30–40%
• Pinterest: ~25–35%
• TikTok: ~20–30%
• Snapchat: ~15–25%
• X (Twitter): ~12–20%
• Reddit: ~12–20%
• LinkedIn: ~10–18%
• WhatsApp: ~10–15%
• Nextdoor: ~3–8% (limited presence in sparsely populated areas)

Age patterns (who’s on what)

• Teens (13–17): Near-universal YouTube; high Snapchat and TikTok; Instagram strong; Facebook minimal except for school/teams.
• 18–29: Heaviest multi-platform use; daily Snapchat/TikTok; strong Instagram and YouTube; Facebook mainly for groups/events.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram moderate; Messenger widely used.
• 50–64: Facebook dominant; YouTube for how‑to; Pinterest moderate; TikTok/Instagram lower but growing.
• 65+: Facebook + YouTube core; other platforms low.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Overall users roughly balanced by gender (similar to population).
• Skews by platform:
  • More women: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest (Pinterest especially female-skewed).
  • More men: YouTube, Reddit, X.
  • TikTok and Snapchat: closer to parity, leaning younger.

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the local hub: community groups, school sports, county updates, events, and Marketplace (farm/ranch gear, vehicles).
• YouTube viewing is heavy for how‑to and outdoor content (equipment repair, DIY, hunting/fishing). More living‑room/Smart TV viewing than posting.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger and SMS are default; Snapchat for teens/young adults; WhatsApp niche.
• Engagement style: more “lurkers” than posters; strong response to locally relevant faces, names, and causes; high trust in known pages (schools, county, boosters).
• Timing: usage peaks early morning and late evening, with a lunchtime check-in; activity dips during planting/harvest and rises around fairs, rodeos, and hunting season.
• Advertising notes: prioritize Facebook/Instagram and YouTube; use short, lightweight video (vertical, <30s), clear phone numbers/location, and simple offers; target Fort Benton, Big Sandy, Geraldine, Highwood plus 25–50 mi radii; LinkedIn and X generally low ROI locally; Snapchat can work for school/event reach; Pinterest effective for DIY/home/food/celebrations targeting women.