Coos County

Here are concise, recent demographics for Coös County, New Hampshire (U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Census; ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates).

• Population: ~31,300 (2020 Census: 31,268; little net change since)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~50 years
  • Under 18: ~18%
  • 18–64: ~58–60%
  • 65+: ~23–24%
• Gender: ~50% male, ~50% female
• Race/ethnicity (share of total population):
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~92–94%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~2–3%
  • Two or more races: ~2–3%
  • Asian: ~1%
  • Black: ~0.5–1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5%
• Households:
  • Number of households: ~14,000
  • Average household size: ~2.2 persons
  • Family households: ~60% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~45% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~24%
  • 65+ living alone: ~14–16%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year (tables DP05, S0101, S1101).

Coös County, NH email usage (estimates, 2024):

• Estimated users: 21,000–24,000 residents use email regularly. Basis: ~31,000 population, ~80–82% adults, 85–90% adult email adoption; plus some teen users.
• Age distribution (adoption rates):
  • 18–29: ~95–98%
  • 30–49: ~95–97%
  • 50–64: ~90–94%
  • 65+: ~80–88% (lower in the most remote areas)
• Gender split: Roughly even; no meaningful difference in email adoption by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription likely ~75–80% (below state average due to rural geography); smartphone-only internet users are a notable minority.
  • Fiber is expanding along the US‑3/Route 2 corridor (Berlin–Gorham–Lancaster–Colebrook) via regional ISP and state/federal investments (e.g., BEAD), improving speeds and reliability.
  • Public/library Wi‑Fi remains important for access in smaller towns; mobile coverage has gaps in valleys and unincorporated townships.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈17 people per square mile (New Hampshire’s most sparsely populated county), with mountainous terrain and long last‑mile runs that raise deployment costs and slow universal high‑speed coverage compared with the rest of the state.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Coos County, NH (focus on how it differs from statewide patterns)

At-a-glance estimates

• Population baseline: roughly 31,000 residents.
• Estimated mobile phone users (any mobile): about 24,000–26,000 residents.
• Estimated smartphone users: about 22,000–24,000 residents.
• Regular 5G users: likely 8,000–12,000 residents, reflecting limited 5G coverage and slower device turnover than in southern NH.
• Notes on method: Estimates combine Coos’s older age profile with typical U.S. phone/smartphone ownership by age (Pew Research and similar benchmarks) and rural adoption adjustments.

How Coos differs from New Hampshire overall

• Adoption gaps by age: Statewide NH skews younger and more affluent, pushing near-universal smartphone adoption. Coos’s larger 65+ share pulls the county’s smartphone adoption a bit lower and keeps a visible (though shrinking) group of basic/flip-phone users.
• Device upgrade cycles: Longer in Coos. Residents keep devices longer, so 5G-capable penetration trails the state average concentrated in the southern tier.
• Plan mix: Higher share of prepaid and budget plans than the state overall; post-ACP (Affordable Connectivity Program) lapse has a more noticeable local impact on affordability and plan downgrades.
• Usage patterns: Average monthly mobile data use per line is somewhat lower than the state average due to patchier 5G and more conservative plan choices. A minority of households without robust wired internet rely on LTE/5G fixed wireless or hotspotting, creating a split: light users overall but heavy usage pockets.
• Carrier choice: More “single-carrier towns.” In parts of Coos, one provider (often Verizon or AT&T) is clearly dominant, while T-Mobile’s coverage is improving but still thinner away from the main corridors—contrast with southern NH, where all three carriers are strong.
• Seasonal surges: Tourism and outdoor events (ATV, snowmobile, hiking) cause sharper, localized network congestion than the statewide norm, especially around Berlin–Gorham, Jericho Mountain area, Pittsburg, and along major lakes and trailheads.
• Cross-border effects: Near the Quebec line, handsets can latch onto Canadian networks, leading to roaming precautions uncommon elsewhere in NH.

Demographic breakdown shaping usage

• Older population share: Coos has a higher proportion of residents 65+, which correlates with slightly lower smartphone adoption, more basic handsets, and fewer app-centric behaviors.
• Income and employment: Lower median household income versus the NH average contributes to higher prepaid uptake, family plan sharing, and data-saving habits.
• Household composition: More single-person and senior households than the state average; fewer multi-line “premium” family plans per capita.
• Workforce patterns: Outdoor, healthcare, manufacturing, hospitality, and seasonal work increase reliance on voice/text reliability and offline-capable apps in fringe coverage areas.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what stands out locally)

• Terrain-driven gaps: Mountainous, forested topography creates coverage shadows and dead zones—far more prevalent than in southern NH.
• Coverage concentration: Strongest around population centers and corridors such as Berlin–Gorham (NH-16/US-2), Lancaster/Whitefield (US-3/US-2), Colebrook/Stewartstown (US-3). Coverage thins rapidly on backroads and in recreation areas (e.g., Dixville Notch, Nash Stream, Jericho backcountry, east of Errol).
• 5G footprint: Predominantly low-band 5G with limited mid-band capacity outside the largest towns; much smaller footprint and capacity than in Hillsborough/Rockingham counties. Many residents still fall back to 4G LTE.
• Capacity and backhaul: A smaller number of towers serve large areas; some sites have limited backhaul, which shows up as slower speeds at peak times. Statewide, dense fiber-fed sites are more common; Coos lags here.
• Fixed wireless/home internet: LTE/5G home internet is an important stopgap where cable/fiber are limited, but availability is patchy and performance can be highly location-dependent. Statewide, more households can choose robust cable or fiber.
• Public safety networks: FirstNet (AT&T) build-outs have improved emergency coverage along key corridors, but consumer 5G capacity still trails southern NH.
• Border quirks: Proximity to Quebec introduces unique roaming and emergency-calling considerations not typical for most NH residents.

Implications for users and providers

• Users: Test coverage by carrier at your specific address and commute—carrier performance varies far more than in southern NH. Consider Wi‑Fi calling at home and offline-capable apps for backcountry areas.
• Providers and planners: The biggest wins come from mid-band 5G infill on existing corridors, more fiber backhaul to rural sites, and targeted builds near recreation areas to handle seasonal peaks—investments that would narrow the largest county–state gaps in experience.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot. Because there’s no official county‑level social media census, figures are modeled from Pew Research U.S. platform usage (2023–2024), rural differentials, New Hampshire’s age mix, and Coos County’s older, rural profile. Treat as directional ranges.

Headline user stats

• Population: ~31,000
• Estimated monthly social media users (13+): 20,000–23,000
• Adult penetration (18+ using at least one platform): ~65–70%
• Multi‑platform behavior: Typical adult uses 2–3 platforms; 18–29s use 4–5.

Most‑used platforms (share of adult residents using monthly; rounded ranges)

• YouTube: 70–80% (broad across ages; tutorials, how‑to, outdoor content)
• Facebook: 65–75% (dominant for local news, groups, Marketplace)
• Instagram: 30–40% (strong 18–39; hiking/scenery, local eateries)
• TikTok: 20–30% (skews under 35; short local lifestyle/outdoors)
• Snapchat: 20–30% (teens/20s; messaging + quick shares)
• Pinterest: 25–35% (skews female; DIY, recipes, crafts, home)
• LinkedIn: 15–22% (professionals in healthcare, public sector, trades mgmt.)
• X/Twitter: 12–18% (niche; sports, statewide news, officials)
• Reddit: 12–16% (younger men; hobbies, tech, outdoors)
• WhatsApp: 10–15% (family/immigrant ties; small but steady)
• Nextdoor: <10% (limited footprint in rural neighborhoods)

Age‑group patterns (share using at least one platform; top preferences)

• Teens (13–17): 90–95%; YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram; minimal Facebook.
• 18–29: 90%+; YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook still used for events/groups.
• 30–49: 80–85%; Facebook and YouTube anchor; Instagram moderate; TikTok/Snapchat selective.
• 50–64: 70–80%; Facebook first, YouTube second; light Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: 50–60%; Facebook and YouTube primarily; limited on others.

Gender tendencies (directional)

• Women: Higher Facebook and Pinterest (about 5–10 points); strong in local groups, events, cause‑driven posts, and shopping/Marketplace.
• Men: Higher YouTube, Reddit, and X/Twitter (about 5–8 points); more hobby/gear, outdoor, and news consumption.
• Instagram and TikTok are broadly balanced overall, with younger women slightly more active on Instagram.

Behavioral trends specific to a rural, older county profile

• Facebook is the community hub: town and neighborhood groups, school/snow/emergency updates, yard sales, lost‑and‑found, civic issues; Marketplace is heavily used.
• Video utility over entertainment: YouTube “how‑to” (home, vehicle, small engine, outdoor/snowmobile, hunting/fishing), local service research, and product reviews.
• Seasonal posting cycles: winter trail/conditions and snow sports; summer hiking/camping/ATV; foliage photos in fall; event promotion peaks spring–fall.
• Local news discovery: Facebook groups/pages and shared links outrank standalone news apps; comment threads drive engagement.
• Messaging preference: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat for day‑to‑day communication among families and younger residents.
• Ad responsiveness: Facebook/Instagram outperform others for local businesses, jobs, events, and services; offers and clear calls‑to‑action work best.
• Connectivity constraints: Patchy broadband/cellular pockets favor shorter videos, compressed images, and off‑peak posting.
• Trust/verification: High engagement on public safety and municipal posts; users scrutinize sources—official pages and known local admins perform best.
• Cross‑posting: Small businesses and events often cross‑post IG→FB; TikTok used for quick behind‑the‑scenes, but FB still converts.

Notes on confidence

• County‑level percentages are estimates derived from national/state rural patterns adjusted for Coos County’s older age distribution.
• For planning, validate with local signals: Facebook Group membership counts, page insights, ad account benchmarks, school district and town page engagement, and YouTube channel analytics from local creators.