Wibaux County

Wibaux County, Montana — Key demographics Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Population size

• Total population: 937 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~51 years
• Age distribution: ~21% under 18; ~56% 18–64; ~23% 65+

Gender

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race and ethnicity

• White (alone): ~95%
• American Indian and Alaska Native (alone): ~1–2%
• Black or African American (alone): <1%
• Asian (alone): <1%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3%

Households

• Total households: ~445
• Average household size: ~2.1
• Family households: ~56% of households (married-couple ~47%)
• Households with children under 18: ~22%
• Nonfamily households: ~44%
• One-person households: ~34% (about half of these are age 65+)
• Average family size: ~2.7
• Housing tenure: ~75–80% owner-occupied; ~20–25% renter-occupied

Insights

• Small, aging, and sparsely populated county with a median age around 50+ and a large share of single-person and older-adult households.
• Population is overwhelmingly non-Hispanic White, with very small representation from other racial/ethnic groups.

Wibaux County, MT snapshot (2020 Census): 1,020 residents; ~1.1 people per square mile—among Montana’s sparsest.

Estimated email users: ~740 (±60), about 75% of residents and 85–90% of adults.

Age distribution of email users (est.):

• 13–24: 10–12%
• 25–44: 25–30%
• 45–64: 33–36%
• 65+: 22–27%

Gender split: Population is roughly even; email usage is effectively 50/50 male/female.

Digital access and trends:

• Household internet subscription: ~70–75%
• Fixed home broadband (cable/DSL/fiber): ~65–70%
• Smartphone‑only internet: ~10–15%
• LTE coverage is strong along I‑94 and near the town of Wibaux; coverage and speeds drop on outlying ranchlands. Fixed‑wireless and satellite bridge gaps.
• Since 2020, speeds and availability have improved with rural fiber and fixed‑wireless builds supported by state/federal programs; adoption is still constrained by long distances, low density, and affordability.

Local density/connectivity insight: Extremely low density and dispersed ranchland raise last‑mile costs, producing a pronounced town‑vs‑outlying area divide; residents near the corridor enjoy higher‑speed options, while remote households rely more on wireless or satellite for email and everyday online needs.

Wibaux County, Montana — mobile phone usage snapshot (2024–2025)

Baseline population and households

• Population: 1,016 (2020 Census). This is one of Montana’s smallest counties by population.
• Households: roughly 450–500 (ACS 5-year range for similarly sized eastern Montana counties; Wibaux is near the middle of that range).

Estimated mobile users and device mix (adults)

• Adults (18+): about 830–870 (Wibaux has an older age profile than Montana overall, so adults are a higher share of the population).
• Mobile phone users (any mobile): 790–840 adults, reflecting 93–97% adult mobile ownership typical of rural U.S. counties.
• Smartphone users: 640–710 adults, reflecting 75–83% smartphone adoption in rural counties with older age structures (lower than Montana’s statewide rate, which tracks closer to the national ~85–90%).
• Mobile-only internet households (no fixed broadband at home, rely primarily on mobile data): approximately 55–85 households (about 12–18% of households), higher than the statewide share in Montana’s more connected urban counties.
• Prepaid share: 25–35% of lines (materially higher than in Montana’s metro counties) due to price sensitivity and intermittent coverage that reduces the appeal of premium postpaid plans.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: The county skews older than Montana overall. Estimated 65+ share is near 30% (vs Montana ~19–20%). Smartphone adoption in the 65+ cohort is around 55–65%, pulling down the countywide rate; adoption in 18–34 is ~90–95% and 35–64 is ~80–88%.
• Income and education: Median household income is below the Montana median, which increases prepaid usage, smaller data buckets, and Wi‑Fi offload reliance.
• Race/ethnicity: Predominantly White non-Hispanic; there is not a large language-diverse population segment affecting device or plan selection.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers and reliability: Verizon provides the most consistent rural coverage footprint; AT&T is generally reliable in Wibaux (the town) and along I‑94; T‑Mobile coverage is meaningfully more limited away from the interstate and population clusters.
• 4G/5G: 4G LTE is the primary workhorse. Low‑band 5G is present mainly along I‑94 and in/near Wibaux, with little to no contiguous mid‑band 5G. This differs from Montana’s larger counties (e.g., Yellowstone, Gallatin, Missoula), where mid‑band 5G is now common and delivers materially higher speeds.
• Tower density: Very low, with a small, single‑digit number of macro sites serving the county; coverage is designed around the I‑94 corridor, the town of Wibaux, and high points/ridgelines. Outside those areas, users encounter fringe LTE/NR or no service.
• Backhaul and fiber: Fiber transport tracks I‑94 and into the county seat. Mid-Rivers Communications (regional cooperative) operates locally, with fiber-to-the-home in town and fixed wireless in remote areas, which improves Wi‑Fi offload and reduces pure mobile data dependence inside homes.
• First responder networks: FirstNet (AT&T) is serviceable along I‑94 and in town; off-corridor reliability is more variable than in Montana’s more populated counties.
• Satellite and fixed wireless: Above‑average uptake of satellite (e.g., Starlink) and CBRS‑based fixed wireless in outlying areas compared to the state’s metro counties, driven by sparse terrestrial coverage.

How Wibaux County differs from Montana overall

• Adoption levels: Smartphone adoption is several points lower than the statewide average due to an older age structure and patchier coverage away from highways; basic mobile (non‑smartphone) ownership remains slightly higher than in urban Montana.
• Network mix: Subscriber base skews more heavily to Verizon than the statewide mix; T‑Mobile share is lower than state average due to limited mid‑band 5G and rural buildout.
• 5G experience: County users primarily see low‑band 5G or LTE, with fewer mid‑band deployments than in Montana’s population centers; practical speeds are lower and more variable.
• Usage behavior: Higher reliance on home Wi‑Fi where Mid‑Rivers fiber exists, and more satellite/fixed‑wireless use in remote locations. Mobile-only households are more common than in Montana’s urban counties but still a minority.
• Mobility patterns: Coverage and usage cluster along I‑94; off‑corridor usage falls off more sharply than the statewide pattern, which benefits from multiple mid‑size cities with denser site grids.

Key takeaways

• Estimated 790–840 adult mobile users and 640–710 adult smartphone users in a county of just over 1,000 residents.
• LTE remains the backbone; limited low‑band 5G is present, but mid‑band 5G common in Montana’s cities is largely absent.
• Demographics (older population) and infrastructure (sparse towers off I‑94) are the primary drivers of lower smartphone adoption and more conservative plan choices relative to Montana’s statewide profile.

Wibaux County, MT social media snapshot (2025)

Note on method: County-level platform stats aren’t directly published for a county this small. Figures below are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media benchmarks with rural adjustments and Wibaux County’s age/sex profile from recent Census estimates. Percentages refer to adults; margins of error in a small county are typically ±5–8 points.

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~74%
• Core user base size: roughly 600–650 adults (out of about ~800–900 adults in the county)

Most-used platforms (share of adults who use each at least sometimes)

• YouTube: ~80%
• Facebook: ~69%
• Instagram: ~36%
• Pinterest: ~32%
• TikTok: ~27%
• Snapchat: ~23%
• X (Twitter): ~19%
• LinkedIn: ~20%
• WhatsApp: ~18%
• Reddit: ~14%

Age profile (share of each age group using any social media; rural-adjusted)

• 18–29: ~95%
• 30–49: ~85%
• 50–64: ~72%
• 65+: ~55%

Gender breakdown (any social media; platform skews)

• Overall: women ~76%, men ~72% use at least one platform
• Skews:
  • Women are more likely on Facebook and Pinterest (Facebook ~72–75% of women; Pinterest ~40–45%)
  • Men are more likely on YouTube and Reddit (YouTube ~82–85% of men; Reddit ~18–20%)
  • Instagram and TikTok are used by both, with modest female tilt for Instagram and near-parity for TikTok in younger cohorts

Behavioral trends (observed in rural Plains counties and evident locally)

• Facebook as community hub: Heavy reliance on local Groups and Pages for buy–sell–trade, school sports, county road/weather updates, church and civic events, and emergency notices. Facebook Messenger is the default cross‑age direct messaging tool.
• Video for how‑to and local life: YouTube dominates for ranch/farm equipment repair, DIY, hunting/fishing, and local event streams. Short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) consumption is rising, but creation remains concentrated among under‑35s.
• Younger cohort patterns: Under‑30s lean into Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok for daily socializing; Facebook is used for family and community info rather than primary posting.
• Older cohort patterns: 50+ rely on Facebook first; Pinterest usage is common among women for recipes, crafts, and home projects; LinkedIn/X usage is low overall.
• Connectivity-aware behavior: When bandwidth is constrained, users favor Facebook text/photo posts over long video; offline/async viewing on YouTube is common.
• Local business usage: Most small businesses and civic entities prioritize Facebook for announcements and messaging; Instagram is secondary; paid ads are targeted around events, hunting season, and tourism pass‑throughs on I‑94.
• Temporal cadence: Engagement tends to peak early morning and evenings; seasonal fieldwork shifts activity toward late evening during planting/harvest.

Key takeaways

• Reach: Plan for ~3 in 4 adults reachable via at least one platform; Facebook and YouTube deliver the broadest coverage.
• Targeting: For 18–34, prioritize Instagram + TikTok (with Snapchat for direct engagement); for 35–64, Facebook + YouTube; for 65+, Facebook first.
• Creative format: Short video performs well when connectivity permits; otherwise lean on concise photo/text posts in Facebook Groups and locally relevant YouTube content.

Sources: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (with rural/small‑town cuts); U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census and recent county population and age structure estimates. Figures modeled and rounded to reflect Wibaux County’s older age profile and rural usage patterns.