Richland County

Richland County, Montana — key demographics

Population size

• 11,491 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age structure (ACS 2018–2022, 5-year)

• Median age: ~37
• Under 18: ~27%
• 18–64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~15%

Sex (ACS 2018–2022)

• Male: ~53%
• Female: ~47%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; mutually exclusive where noted)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~84%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~6–7%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~4–5%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~4–5%
• Black, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0%

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~4,600
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~63% (married-couple families ~50%)
• Households with children under 18: ~31%
• One-person households: ~25%
• Housing units: ~5,200
• Occupied units that are owner-occupied: ~70% (renter-occupied ~30%)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population total); American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household/housing). Figures rounded for clarity.

Richland County, MT (2020 population 11,491; ~2,084 sq mi) has a very low density of about 5.5 residents per square mile. Estimated email users: roughly 8,300–8,500 residents (about 90% of adults and ~70% of teens), with a working point estimate near 8,400.

Age distribution of email users (share of users): 18–34 ≈28%, 35–54 ≈36%, 55–64 ≈17%, 65+ ≈19%. Gender split among users closely mirrors the county’s population at roughly 51% male and 49% female.

Digital access and trends:

• About 80–85% of households have a broadband subscription and roughly 90% have a computer; 10–12% are smartphone‑only for home internet; about 5–8% have no home internet.
• Connectivity is strongest in and around Sidney and along main travel corridors; remote farms and ranches still face gaps, with some relying on DSL or satellite.
• Fixed broadband upgrades and expanding 4G/5G coverage have lifted speeds and adoption since 2018, especially among older adults and mobile‑only households, reinforcing email as the default digital communication channel across work, school, healthcare, and services.

Mobile phone usage summary for Richland County, Montana (2025)

Topline user estimates

• Population and households: ~11,400 residents and ~4,700 households (ACS 2022 rounded to 2025). Adults (18+) ≈ 8,900.
• Any mobile phone users (adults): ≈ 8,450 (≈95% of adults, aligned with CDC/Pew telephony adoption).
• Smartphone users (adults): ≈ 7,650 (≈86% of adults; rural counties generally track slightly below national smartphone adoption).
• Basic-phone-only users (adults): ≈ 800.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): ≈ 3,300 (about 70% of households; similar to U.S./MT wireless-only norms, with a rural tilt toward mobile substitution).

Demographic breakdown of mobile use (estimates derived by applying national age-specific adoption to local age mix)

• Age 18–34: ~2,760 adults; smartphone adoption ~95% ⇒ ~2,620 users. Heavier mobile-first behavior for work, messaging, and video; little landline reliance.
• Age 35–54: ~3,200 adults; smartphone adoption ~90% ⇒ ~2,880 users. High data use for work coordination in energy, agriculture, and trades; common hotspot tethering when fixed broadband is weak.
• Age 55–64: ~1,330 adults; smartphone adoption ~83% ⇒ ~1,110 users. Notable use of larger-screen Android devices and boosters in metal buildings/shops.
• Age 65+: ~1,600 adults; smartphone adoption ~65% ⇒ ~1,040 users; another ~25–30% use basic phones. Text/voice reliability prioritized; Wi‑Fi calling used to fill coverage gaps.
• Workforce factors: A slightly higher male share and an energy-sector workforce translate to more employer-provisioned lines, rugged devices, and multi-line plans than Montana overall.
• Household profile: Mobile-only or mobile-primary internet use is more common outside Sidney/Fairview, particularly on ranches and along MT‑16/MT‑200 corridors.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carrier presence
  • Verizon: Broadest rural LTE footprint; low-band 5G (n5) present around population centers and corridors; mid-band 5G (C-band) limited compared with Montana’s larger cities.
  • AT&T: Strong highway coverage; Band 12/14 improves reach; FirstNet buildouts enhance public-safety coverage along primary routes.
  • T‑Mobile: 600 MHz (Band 71) improves reach into the county; low-band 5G (n71) near Sidney and main roads; mid-band (n41) availability is sparse, so speeds often mirror LTE.
  • Regional partners and roaming fill in gaps near the North Dakota line.
• Backhaul and local fiber
  • Sidney and Fairview benefit from local cooperative fiber and regional backbone routes, supporting stable backhaul for macro sites.
  • Outside towns, sectors are backhaul-constrained more often than in western/urban Montana, affecting capacity during peak shifts and harvest season.
• Site distribution and reliability
  • Macro sites cluster around Sidney, Fairview, Savage, Lambert, Crane, highways, and river/rail corridors; deep-rural sections show wider inter-site spacing than the Montana average.
  • VoLTE is the norm; Wi‑Fi calling is widely used indoors. Consumer signal boosters and external antennas are common on farms and in metal buildings.

How Richland County differs from Montana overall

• Coverage pattern: Greater reliance on low-band LTE/5G for reach, with fewer mid-band 5G deployments than the state’s metro cores (Billings, Missoula, Bozeman). Practical effect: lower median 5G speeds and more LTE fallback than the state average.
• Workforce-driven usage: Higher share of employer-paid and multi-line plans tied to energy, trucking, and construction. Daytime cell loading spikes align with shift changes and work zones rather than commuter peaks typical of larger Montana cities.
• Cross-border dynamics: Frequent roaming and network selection near Williston/Watford City, ND. Businesses and heavy users more often choose Verizon/AT&T for multi-state corridor reliability than elsewhere in Montana.
• Mobile as primary internet: Above-average dependence on mobile broadband and hotspots outside fiber/coax footprints; fixed-wireless and satellite fill gaps. This mobile-first behavior is more pronounced than the Montana average.
• Device mix and accessories: Higher observed use of ruggedized Android devices, fleet trackers, and signal boosters than statewide norms, reflecting energy and ag operations.

Practical implications

• Capacity, not just coverage, is the bottleneck during busy periods; mid-band 5G additions near Sidney and along MT‑16/MT‑200 would meaningfully raise user experience.
• For residents outside town limits, carrier choice materially affects reliability; Verizon and AT&T tend to be safer picks for county-wide coverage, while T‑Mobile performs well where Band 71/low-band 5G is present.
• Businesses benefit from dual-carrier redundancy or eSIM failover given cross-border work patterns and spotty mid-band depth.
• Mobile-only households and seniors rely on Wi‑Fi calling and boosters; investments in indoor coverage solutions yield outsized gains.

Notes on figures and method

• Population/household baselines reflect ACS/Census county totals (rounded to 2025). Adoption rates apply Pew/CDC national and rural-specific benchmarks to the local age structure; results are point estimates intended for planning and comparison to Montana statewide patterns.

Social media usage in Richland County, Montana (2024–2025 snapshot)

How to read this: County-specific platform data are not directly published. Percentages below reflect best-available U.S. rural benchmarks from Pew Research Center (2024) applied to a rural county like Richland with a relatively young working population; treat them as locally representative estimates.

Overall usage

• Adult social media penetration: approximately 80–85% of adults use at least one social platform.
• Multi-platform behavior: most adult users maintain accounts on 3–5 platforms; under-30s often use 5+.

Most‑used platforms (share of adults who use each)

• YouTube: ~75–85% (clear No. 1 across ages; strongest among men and 18–49)
• Facebook: ~60–70% (No. 1 for community news, groups, events; strongest among 30+ and women)
• Instagram: ~40–50% (younger adults and women; growing among 30–49)
• TikTok: ~25–35% (concentrated under 35; women slightly higher)
• Snapchat: ~20–30% (heavy under 30; messaging-first use)
• Pinterest: ~25–35% (skews female; projects, recipes, décor, seasonal content)
• X/Twitter: ~15–25% (news/sports; more male)
• Reddit: ~15–20% (more male; hobby/technical communities)
• LinkedIn: ~15–25% (professional networking; lower in rural areas)
• Nextdoor: low single digits (limited footprint in sparsely populated areas)

Age patterns

• 18–29: Very high daily use of YouTube; heavy on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok; Facebook mostly for groups/events rather than posting.
• 30–49: YouTube and Facebook dominate; Instagram usage moderate and rising; TikTok adoption mixed but growing.
• 50–64: Facebook first, YouTube second; Pinterest common; lighter on Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook primary; YouTube for news/how‑to; minimal use of newer apps.

Gender breakdown (usage tendencies)

• Women: Higher likelihood and engagement on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and TikTok; more active in local groups and marketplace.
• Men: Higher usage of YouTube, Reddit, and X; more consumption of long‑form video and hobby/tech content.

Behavioral trends in a rural eastern Montana context

• Facebook Groups as the community hub: buy/sell, school and sports updates, county/city alerts, event coordination; highest local reach and shares.
• Video is utility‑driven: YouTube favored for how‑to (equipment, home, hunting/fishing) and local sports replays; short‑form (Reels/TikTok) works for announcements and highlights.
• Messaging > posting among younger users: Snapchat and Instagram DMs carry day‑to‑day chatter; public posting less frequent.
• Local commerce: Facebook Marketplace and group posts outperform standalone pages for retail and services; promotions and seasonal offers convert best.
• News and information: Local happenings discovered on Facebook first; state/national news via YouTube and X headlines.
• Advertising effectiveness: Geo‑targeted Facebook/Instagram deliver the broadest local reach; short video and carousel formats outperform static images; TikTok/Snapchat effective for under‑30 awareness.

Sources: Pew Research Center, “Social Media Use in 2024” (national and urban/suburban/rural cuts); Pew Research Center teen and platform reports (trend direction for under‑30s); U.S. Census Bureau (county demographics used to contextualize rural patterns).