Clay County

Here are concise, recent estimates for Clay County, Nebraska.

Population

• Total: ~6,200 (2023 ACS 5-year est.); 6,104 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~42 years
• Under 18: ~26%
• 18–64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~20%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (shares of total population)

• White alone: ~92%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.5–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.5–1%
• Asian alone: ~0.3–0.5%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~15–17%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~78–80%

Households and housing

• Households: ~2,450–2,500
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~65%
• Married-couple households: ~55%
• Homeownership rate: ~73–75%
• Median household income: ~$60k–$65k
• Persons in poverty: ~8–10%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census and 2019–2023 American Community Survey (5-year estimates).

Clay County, NE – estimated email usage snapshot

• Estimated users: 4,600–5,100 people use email regularly, out of roughly 6,000–6,500 residents. Assumes ~78% adults and high email adoption among adults, plus most teens 13–17.
• Age distribution of users (approximate share of users):
  • 12–17: 6–8%
  • 18–29: 14–16%
  • 30–49: 28–32%
  • 50–64: 25–30%
  • 65+: 18–22%
• Gender split: Near parity; men and women use email at similar rates (≈50/50).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet: About 75–85% of households have a home internet subscription; a meaningful minority are mobile-only.
  • Device access: High smartphone penetration; most households have a computer/tablet, though seniors are less connected than working-age adults.
  • Connectivity has improved since 2020 via fiber and fixed wireless buildouts, but pockets with slower service and spotty cellular remain.
• Local density/connectivity context: Low population density (~10–11 residents per square mile across ~570 sq. mi.) and dispersed farmsteads increase last-mile costs and reliance on fixed wireless and mobile data; libraries/schools often serve as public Wi‑Fi hubs.

Sources/assumptions: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS S2801, population/digital access), Pew Research Center (email/internet use by age/gender), FCC rural broadband deployment reports. Estimates adapted to Clay County’s rural age mix.

Clay County, Nebraska – mobile phone usage snapshot (focus on how it differs from state-level)

Headline takeaways

• High mobile reliance in rural areas: a larger share of “mobile-only” households than the Nebraska average, driven by patchy fixed broadband outside towns.
• Older age structure dampens overall smartphone penetration versus state, but working-age and farm operators are heavy mobile users.
• 5G is present but mostly low-band; mid-band 5G and small cells are less common than statewide urban/suburban areas.

User estimates (2025, best-available estimates from ACS-style demographics, Pew adoption rates, and rural usage patterns)

• Population base: about 6,100–6,300 residents; roughly 4,700–4,900 adults.
• Residents with a mobile phone (any type): 5,200–5,600 (≈83–88% of total population).
• Smartphone users: 4,600–5,000 (≈75–80% of total population; ≈88–92% of adults). This runs a few points lower than Nebraska’s statewide adult smartphone rate (typically low- to mid-90s).
• Mobile-only internet households (no wired home broadband): 12–18% in Clay County vs roughly 8–12% statewide. Highest outside the larger towns.
• Typical device replacement cycle: 4–5 years in Clay County vs 3–4 years statewide, reflecting cost sensitivity and coverage-driven carrier stickiness.

Demographic and behavior differences vs Nebraska

• Age: Larger 65+ share (about 22–25% vs Nebraska ≈16–18%). Senior smartphone adoption trails the state (≈65–75% vs ≈75–80% statewide), pulling down the county average.
• Working-age residents (18–64): Adoption is near state levels (≈90–95%). Farm and trades workers report heavy use of messaging, weather, navigation, and ag apps; video streaming on cellular is more constrained by coverage and data caps than in cities.
• Hispanic/Latino residents: Slightly above the state average in some towns; higher use of WhatsApp/FB Messenger and mobile remittance apps; more mobile-dependent in rental or multi-family housing where wired options are limited.
• Plan mix: More postpaid family plans with carriers perceived to have stronger rural coverage; prepaid presence tied to seasonal/migrant workers. Hotspot add-ons used as a substitute for home internet in fringe areas.

Digital infrastructure profile (how it differs from state patterns)

• Macro coverage
  • 4G LTE: Broad countywide coverage from national carriers; still the reliability backbone in much of the county.
  • 5G: Mainly low-band 5G from at least one carrier across most populated corridors and towns (Clay Center, Sutton, Harvard, Fairfield, Edgar). Mid-band 5G (fastest tiers) is spotty and generally limited to town centers; mmWave is effectively absent. This lags Nebraska’s metro corridors where mid-band 5G is common.
  • Dead zones: Fewer towers and long inter-site distances lead to weaker indoor service and farm-field gaps compared with state urban/suburban areas.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Fiber rings and middle-mile follow rail/highway corridors and connect public anchors (schools, libraries, public safety). Within town limits, some blocks have fiber-to-the-home or upgraded cable; outside towns, DSL and fixed wireless remain common.
  • Result: higher proportion of residents relying on mobile or fixed wireless for primary internet than the statewide norm.
• Fixed wireless and WISPs
  • Prominent in rural sections, using grain elevators/water towers. Performance varies by line-of-sight and congestion; better than DSL in many outlying areas but less consistent than urban wired options.
• Public safety and resiliency
  • FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is present along main corridors; priority and Band 14 help during events, but redundancy is thinner than in metro Nebraska (fewer diverse routes, more microwave backhaul).
• Speed expectations
  • Typical outdoor speeds: LTE 5–30 Mbps in fringe to 30–80 Mbps near towns; low-band 5G 30–120 Mbps; pockets of mid-band 5G can exceed 200 Mbps but are limited. These are lower and more variable than Nebraska’s urban averages where mid-band 5G and dense fiber backhaul are common.

Notable trends to watch

• Grants and co-op builds are extending fiber from town centers; each new fiber pocket reduces mobile-only households and shifts usage to Wi‑Fi offload.
• Precision agriculture drives steady LTE/5G uplink use (telemetry, RTK corrections); demand peaks in planting/harvest seasons. This seasonal load pattern is more pronounced than statewide averages.
• Carrier consolidation of rural sites and spectrum refarming are improving coverage gradually, but meaningful mid-band 5G expansion will be needed to close the experience gap with Nebraska’s metros.

What this means for planning

• Expect slightly lower overall smartphone penetration than the Nebraska average due to age mix, but higher per-user mobile reliance in rural blocks.
• Investments with the biggest impact: mid-band 5G sectors on existing towers; additional rural small macro/mini-macro sites; fiber backhaul to reduce LTE/5G congestion; and targeted fixed-wireless upgrades to cut mobile-only dependence.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for Clay County, Nebraska, based on county population (~6.1k), rural U.S./Nebraska adoption patterns, and 2023–2024 national platform benchmarks. County-level platform datasets don’t exist publicly, so figures are ranges, not hard counts.

Snapshot of users

• Estimated social media users (13+): ~3,600–3,900 people (about 60–65% of the total population; ~70% of adults; ~90% of teens).
• By age (share using social media):
  • 13–17: ~85–95%
  • 18–29: ~85–90%
  • 30–49: ~75–85%
  • 50–64: ~65–75%
  • 65+: ~45–55%
• Gender: Overall usage is roughly even. Women tend to be slightly more active on Facebook and Pinterest; men slightly more on YouTube, X/Twitter, and Reddit.

Most-used platforms (share of adult social media users; approximate)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70% (dominant local network)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• Snapchat: 25–35% (strong among teens/20s)
• TikTok: 25–35% (growing across age groups)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (skews female)
• X/Twitter: 10–20%
• LinkedIn: 10–20% (smaller white‑collar slice)
• Nextdoor: <10% (limited rural penetration)

Age-group tendencies

• Teens (13–17): Heavy on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram; DMs and private Stories > public posting; YouTube for entertainment/how‑to.
• 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat core; YouTube ubiquitous; Facebook mainly for events and family.
• 30–49: Facebook + Messenger for groups, school/sports updates, Marketplace; Instagram/Reels rising; YouTube for how‑to and product research.
• 50–64: Facebook primary; YouTube for news/how‑to; growing comfort with Reels/TikTok for short videos.
• 65+: Facebook for community, churches, and family; YouTube for tutorials and local news clips.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups and Pages (schools, churches, 4‑H, county fair, youth sports, local government) drive most local conversation.
• Marketplace culture: Strong buy/sell/trade activity on Facebook, especially for farm/ranch items, vehicles, tools, and household goods.
• Video matters: Short-form (Reels/TikTok) grows fast; YouTube remains the go-to for repairs, equipment maintenance, DIY, and recipes.
• Event-driven spikes: Weather incidents, harvest season, school activities, and local elections create sharp engagement peaks.
• Messaging over posting: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are key for coordination; many are “lurkers” who read more than they post.
• Trust signals: Local admins, known community members, and recognizable businesses get higher engagement; skepticism toward out-of-area ads/scams.
• Timing: Evenings and weekend mornings perform best; weekday midday is quieter due to work schedules and field time.
• Connectivity-aware: Spotty rural coverage shapes behavior—short videos and text updates often outperform long livestreams.

Note on data quality

• Figures are county-scaled estimates from rural/U.S. patterns; precise platform counts at the county level are not published. For tighter targeting, audit local Facebook Groups/Pages, Instagram location tags, and school/team accounts to validate audience size and active times.