Garfield County

Key demographics for Garfield County, Montana (U.S. Census Bureau):

Population

• 1,173 (2020 Census)
• 1,258 (2023 population estimate)

Age

• Under 5: 3.5%
• Under 18: 21.1%
• 65 and over: 26.7%

Gender

• Female: 47.6%
• Male: 52.4%

Race/ethnicity (2020 Census)

• White alone: 95.2%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 1.5%
• Two or more races: 2.7%
• Black or African American alone: 0.3%
• Asian alone: 0.2%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1.7%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 93.6%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Number of households: ~540
• Persons per household: 2.23
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: 79.6%

Notes: Counts/percentages reflect the 2020 Decennial Census and latest ACS/QuickFacts where indicated; small-area estimates carry margins of error.

Garfield County, MT — email usage (estimates)

• Context: ≈1,200 residents across ≈4,800 sq mi (~0.25 people/sq mi), among the most sparsely populated U.S. counties; services cluster in Jordan.
• Connectivity: Fixed-broadband subscription likely ~50–70% of households; many outside town rely on cellular or satellite. Fiber is limited; public access points (library/schools in Jordan) help. Mobile email is common due to weaker wired options.
• Estimated email users: ~550–800 residents use email at least monthly (≈45–70% of the population), driven by smartphone adoption.
• Age pattern (share using email within each cohort):
  • 13–17: ~50–60%
  • 18–34: ~90%+
  • 35–64: ~85–95%
  • 65+: ~60–75% Given the county’s older age profile, adults 55+ likely account for ~35–45% of local email users.
• Gender split: Roughly even; any male–female gap is small (~1–3 percentage points), consistent with rural U.S. trends.
• Trend: Gradual gains among seniors and mobile-only households; usage is tempered by data caps, terrain-related signal gaps, and affordability.

Below is a practical, planning-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Garfield County, Montana—one of the most rural, lowest-density counties in the state—with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns. Where figures are estimates, they’re framed as ranges and tied to visible constraints like coverage, demographics, and infrastructure.

Context and population

• Population: roughly 1.2K residents (2020 Census), spread over nearly 5,000 square miles; the county seat is Jordan.
• Terrain/land use: vast ranchland and badlands; long highway stretches (US‑200, MT‑59) with sparse settlement patterns.

User estimates and adoption

• Unique mobile users: roughly 900–1,050 residents use a mobile phone of some kind. That’s a lower share of total population than in most Montana counties, driven by age mix and coverage gaps.
• Smartphone vs. basic/feature phones:
  • Garfield County: smartphones an estimated 70–80% of adult users; basic/feature phones still material (20–30%), especially among older ranching households.
  • Montana overall: smartphones closer to 85–90% of adult users; basic phones a small minority.
• Lines per person: slightly below state average. Multi-line family plans exist, but fewer tablets/watches and fewer hotspot-only lines than in metro counties.
• Device replacement cycles: longer than statewide; ruggedized/older LTE handsets persist because 5G brings little real-world benefit where mid-band is absent.

Demographic and behavioral patterns

• Age: above-average share of 55+ residents. Smartphone adoption among seniors is improving but trails the state by a wide margin; flip/feature phones remain common for voice/text.
• Work patterns: ranching and energy/outdoor trades value coverage reliability and battery life over top-tier data speeds. Push-to-talk apps and external antennas/boosters are more common than in cities.
• Income/plan mix: more prepaid and basic postpaid plans; careful data budgeting where coverage or backhaul is thin.
• Mobility: seasonal influx from hunters/anglers produces short, pronounced load spikes around Jordan and major trailheads—unlike steadier urban demand curves.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Cell sites: very sparse; a handful of macro towers cluster around Jordan and along US‑200/MT‑59. Large interior areas have spotty or no signal.
• Carriers:
  • Verizon: typically the most reliable footprint; low‑band LTE anchors (e.g., Band 13) and some DSS 5G in/near Jordan if present.
  • AT&T/FirstNet: improved public-safety coverage on key corridors; still patchy off-highway.
  • T‑Mobile: limited presence; relies on low‑band spectrum where available; many dead zones.
  • Regional providers/partners have a small footprint; roaming is common.
• 5G reality: minimal practical 5G. Where it exists, it’s low‑band DSS with LTE-like performance. No meaningful mid-band 5G layer today, unlike Billings/Bozeman/Missoula corridors.
• Backhaul: mixed microwave with pockets of fiber along highways/into Jordan. Constrained backhaul limits peak capacity during events and in the evenings.
• Home internet interplay: many households use WISPs, cooperative fiber where available, or satellite (including Starlink). As a result, mobile data is not the primary broadband for most homes, unlike some rural counties where LTE hotspots fill the gap.

How Garfield County differs from statewide trends

• Adoption mix: higher share of basic/feature phones and older LTE devices; lower smartphone saturation than the Montana average.
• Coverage-driven behavior: more reliance on Wi‑Fi calling, vehicle boosters, and external antennas; larger no‑service areas than most MT counties.
• 5G: far less available and less useful; statewide statistics showing growing 5G usage don’t apply here.
• Data consumption: per-line mobile data use likely below state average because of coverage/backhaul limits and the prevalence of home satellite/WISP. When mobile data is used, it’s concentrated near Jordan/highways and spikes seasonally.
• Market concentration: Verizon’s lead is stronger here than statewide; T‑Mobile share is smaller than in Montana’s towns/cities.
• Seasonal volatility: sharper, short-term load spikes tied to hunting/angling versus steadier urban traffic profiles.
• Device turnover: slower refresh cycles; rugged devices favored; fewer connected wearables/tablets than statewide.

Rough quantitative picture (method-driven estimates)

• Adults with any mobile phone: ~75–90% of residents.
• Adults with smartphones: ~60–75% of residents (70–80% of mobile users), vs ~80–90% statewide.
• Mobile-only households (no landline): lower than state average; landlines and radios still valued for reliability in remote areas.
• Carrier share (very approximate): Verizon 50–65%, AT&T 25–40%, T‑Mobile <10%, with roaming/regionals filling gaps.

Implications for planning and investment

• The biggest uplift will come from new backhaul (fiber or high-capacity microwave) tied to a few additional macro sites along US‑200/MT‑59 and key ranch corridors, plus Band 14/71 low‑band fill-ins.
• Capacity is less of a constraint than coverage: low‑band LTE/5G NR on additional towers will outperform small-cell strategies.
• Public-safety and community resilience benefit from site hardening (generators, battery extensions) and redundant backhaul, given winter storms and wildfire risks.
• Consumer experience will track with continued fiber-to-Jordan and middle‑mile expansions; until then, expect LTE-first service with limited 5G benefit.

Note on uncertainty

• Garfield County lacks granular public reporting; the figures above are grounded in its population, age mix, terrain, and observed rural MT carrier footprints. Treat numeric values as planning estimates rather than precise counts.

Below is a concise, directional snapshot. Exact, county‑level platform shares aren’t published; figures are estimates based on rural U.S./Montana patterns and Garfield County’s small, older-leaning population.

Population/context

• Population: roughly 1.1–1.2k residents; sparse, very rural; older median age.
• Internet: patchy fixed broadband; most access social via smartphones. Adoption varies by remoteness.

Estimated social media user base

• Total users: ~600–800 residents (roughly 60–75% of ages 13+).
• Age mix (share of local social users): 13–24: 15–20%; 25–44: 25–30%; 45–64: 30–35%; 65+: 20–25%.
• Gender: Slight male majority in the county overall. Among social users, engagement skews a bit female on Facebook/Instagram and male on YouTube; net split ≈ 50/50 ±5%.

Most‑used platforms (share of local social users)

• Facebook: 70–80% (dominant hub for news, groups, Marketplace).
• YouTube: 70–85% (how‑to, ag/ranching, local sports recaps).
• Instagram: 25–40% (younger adults; events, family).
• TikTok: 20–30% (teens/20s; light local creator base).
• Snapchat: 15–25% (teens/early 20s messaging).
• Pinterest: 15–25% (DIY, recipes, crafts).
• X/Twitter: 10–20% (state/national news, sports).
• LinkedIn: 8–15% (small professional niche).
• Nextdoor: <10% (low utility in very low-density areas).
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is widely used; WhatsApp minimal.

Behavioral trends

• Facebook Groups/Pages are the community backbone: school sports, 4‑H, county fair, weather/road updates, hunting/fishing reports, lost‑and‑found, buy/sell (Marketplace).
• Evening and weekend peaks; seasonal spikes around calving/harvest, storms, hunting season, and school events.
• Video is mostly consumed, not produced; uploads limited by bandwidth.
• Trust is local: posts from known people, county offices, schools, churches, and volunteer groups outperform generic pages.
• Small businesses rely on boosted Facebook posts and Marketplace; wide-radius targeting due to sparse population.
• Older adults use Facebook to keep up with family who’ve moved; younger users split time with Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok.

Note: In a population this small, a change of a few dozen people can shift percentages. For precise counts, use platform ad planners for “Jordan, MT + radius” or run a short local survey.