Chenango County

Chenango County, NY — key demographics

• Population
  • 47,220 (2020 Census)
  • ~46–47k (recent ACS estimate; 2018–2022 5-year)
• Age
  • Median age: ~44 years
  • Under 18: ~20–21%
  • 65 and over: ~21–22%
• Gender
  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%
• Race and ethnicity (percent of total population)
  • White (alone): ~93–94%
  • Black or African American (alone): ~1–2%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native (alone): ~0.5%
  • Asian (alone): ~0.5–1%
  • Two or more races: ~3–4%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3–4%
• Households and housing
  • Households: ~19–20k
  • Average household size: ~2.3
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (QuickFacts/ACS).

Chenango County, NY email usage (estimate)

• Context: Rural county (~47K residents; ~52 people/sq. mi.). Broadband adoption is below the NYS average; roughly 75–85% of households have an internet subscription, with better connectivity along the Route 12 corridor (e.g., Norwich, Greene) and patchier service in hillier, sparsely populated areas. Fiber buildouts via state programs are improving access.
• Estimated email users: 33,000–37,000 residents use email regularly. Method: population × internet access (80%) × email adoption among internet users (90%).
• Age distribution (of email users; approximate):
  • 13–24: 15–20% (high adoption, but some prefer messaging apps)
  • 25–44: 28–32% (near-universal use for work/school)
  • 45–64: 32–36% (very high use)
  • 65+: 15–20% (lower adoption but rising)
• Gender split: ~50/50; no meaningful difference in email adoption by gender.
• Digital access trends: Gradual uptick in home broadband, more mobile-only households in remote areas, continued reliance on public access points (libraries, schools, municipal Wi‑Fi). Telehealth, remote learning/work, and e-government are key drivers of email use.

Notes: Figures are rounded estimates based on ACS-style broadband subscription rates for rural NY counties and national email adoption benchmarks.

Below is an evidence‑informed snapshot of mobile phone usage in Chenango County, NY, highlighting how it differs from statewide patterns. Figures are estimates derived from county demographics (ACS), national adoption surveys (Pew/NHIS), FCC broadband/coverage filings, and rural market benchmarks. They should be treated as planning‑grade—not census counts.

Headline user estimates (2025)

• Population baseline: ~46–47k residents; ~36–38k adults (18+).
• Mobile phone users (any mobile): 92–96% of adults ⇒ ~34–36k adult users. Including teens (13–17) adds ~3–3.5k users. Total mobile users: ~37–40k.
• Smartphone users: 75–82% of adults ⇒ ~27–31k adult smartphone users; county total ~30–33k.
• Mobile-only internet households (use mobile data as primary home internet): 18–25% (county) vs ~12–15% statewide, reflecting limited/expensive wired options in rural areas.
• Cell‑only voice households (no landline): 60–70% (county) vs ~75–80% statewide; seniors in the county retain landlines at higher rates.

Demographic breakdown and how it diverges from NY State

• Age:
  • 65+: larger share of county population (~21–23% vs ~18% statewide). Smartphone adoption among 65+ is lower (roughly 55–65% county vs ~70–80% statewide). Feature/flip phones persist (≈10–15% of seniors).
  • 18–49: near‑universal smartphone use (≥90%), but slightly lower than downstate urban cohorts.
• Income and plan type:
  • Lower median household income than NY overall correlates with higher prepaid/MVNO usage (≈25–35% county vs ~15–20% statewide) and more data‑capped plans.
  • Device replacement cycles are longer (common 4–5 years vs 3–4 statewide).
• Platform mix:
  • More Android‑leaning than NY overall (which skews iOS, especially in NYC/suburbs). In Chenango, Android likely modest majority.
• Household internet behavior:
  • “Mobile‑first” reliance is more common, and Wi‑Fi offload is lower due to spotty wired broadband in outlying areas. Practical effect: slightly lower video quality/usage and heavier SMS/voice reliance for services like school and municipal alerts.
• Post‑ACP environment:
  • The lapse of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (mid‑2024) likely had a larger local impact than statewide, contributing to plan downgrades, prepaid shifts, or increased churn.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (county specifics)

• Terrain and tower density:
  • Hilly topography and low site density create dead zones in valleys and near state forest lands (e.g., parts of Pharsalia, McDonough, Otselic). Coverage is strongest in and along: Norwich, Greene, Oxford, Sherburne; US‑12 and NY‑23 corridors.
• Technology mix:
  • LTE remains the primary layer countywide. Low‑band 5G is present along main corridors on at least one carrier, but mid‑band 5G capacity is likely concentrated near larger villages (e.g., Norwich/Greene) and along highways. mmWave is not a factor.
• Carrier dynamics:
  • Verizon tends to have the broadest rural footprint; AT&T is competitive along primary roads/towns and operates FirstNet; T‑Mobile has improved but remains more variable off‑corridor. Net effect: more multi‑SIM/work‑line redundancy among field workers than in metro NY.
• Capacity/backhaul:
  • Some rural sites rely on microwave backhaul; evening and event‑time congestion is more noticeable than in urban NY. Backup power at remote sites is limited, so extended outages after storms are more disruptive.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable plant (DOCSIS) is largely confined to village centers; many rural homes rely on DSL, WISPs, or satellite. Fiber buildouts via NY’s ConnectALL/BEAD (2024–2028) are underway but incomplete; until they land, mobile is a critical stopgap for home connectivity.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet coverage along major corridors is improving, but off‑pavement reliability remains mixed, prompting continued use of land mobile radio in remote areas.

Usage patterns vs statewide

• Slower 5G transition: More users remain on LTE devices/plans; eSIM adoption lags.
• Higher Android and prepaid share; lower iOS share relative to NY overall.
• Higher landline retention among seniors and greater mobile‑only internet reliance among low‑income and remote households.
• Heavier reliance on voice/SMS and asynchronous apps; video telehealth uptake is constrained by coverage and data caps.
• Seasonal/spot congestion: farm operations, tourism, and school events noticeably impact cell performance in small towns—effects that are diluted in urban NY.

What to watch (2025–2027)

• Mid‑band 5G (C‑band/2.5 GHz) infill around Norwich/Greene could materially lift capacity and enable more 5G home internet offers.
• County fiber expansions should reduce mobile‑only households and increase Wi‑Fi offload, narrowing the gap with statewide usage patterns.
• Any replacement for ACP will disproportionately influence Chenango’s prepaid and mobile‑broadband adoption.

Method notes

• Population and age structure: ACS 2020–2023.
• Mobile/smartphone adoption and cell‑only households: Pew Research Center and CDC NHIS, adjusted downward for rural/older‑skewing demographics.
• Coverage/infrastructure: FCC maps, carrier filings, and rural performance norms for Upstate NY. Where carrier‑specific details are uncertain, statements are directional rather than definitive.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot for Chenango County, NY. Because platform-by-platform county-level metrics aren’t publicly released, figures use the latest Pew Research Center U.S. adoption rates applied to Chenango County’s population, plus rural-usage patterns. Treat as estimates.

Snapshot and user stats

• Population: ≈47,000 residents; adults (18+): ≈37,000–38,000.
• Estimated adult social media users: ≈26,000–28,000 (based on ~72–75% of U.S. adults using at least one social platform).
• Access: Most usage is mobile-first; broadband availability is lower than metro NY, which reinforces heavy use of a few mainstream apps (especially Facebook and YouTube).

Most-used platforms (share of U.S. adults; applied locally)

• YouTube: ~83% of adults
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Pinterest: ~35%
• Snapchat: ~27–30%
• WhatsApp: ~29%
• LinkedIn: ~30–33%
• X (Twitter): ~20–22% Note: Applying these to ≈37,500 adults yields rough local user counts (e.g., Facebook ≈25–26k adults; YouTube ≈31k).

Age groups (who uses what)

• Teens (13–17): Very high on YouTube (95%), Snapchat (60%), TikTok (60–70%), Instagram (60%+); low on Facebook. Strong short‑form video, chat, and creator content.
• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube; heavy Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; moderate Facebook.
• 30–49: YouTube and Facebook dominate; Instagram significant; TikTok moderate; Snapchat declines.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube lead by a wide margin; Instagram/TikTok are minority but growing.
• 65+: Facebook is the default; YouTube used for how‑to/news; minimal on TikTok/Instagram.

Gender breakdown

• County population is roughly 50/50 female–male.
• Platform skews (national pattern likely reflected locally):
  • Women: More likely to use Facebook and especially Pinterest (women ~2–2.5x men on Pinterest), plus Instagram modestly higher.
  • Men: More likely to use YouTube, Reddit, and X (Twitter).
  • Minimal gender gap on TikTok overall, but content interests differ.

Behavioral trends (rural NY context)

• Facebook is the community hub: local news, school updates, yard‑sale/Marketplace, civic alerts, events, and service recommendations. Facebook Groups drive much of the engagement.
• Video is rising: YouTube for how‑to, repairs, outdoor/recreation, and local sports; TikTok/Instagram Reels for short, shareable local content among under‑40s.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger (broad), Snapchat (younger), and SMS for coordination.
• Commerce and jobs: Marketplace and local business pages perform well; job postings and shift work opportunities get high interaction.
• Trust and locality: Posts from neighbors, schools, county agencies, and known businesses outperform generic brand content. Community-focused, practical, and event-driven posts do best.
• Timing: Engagement typically concentrates outside work/school hours (early morning, evenings, weekends).

Notes and sources

• Sources: Pew Research Center (U.S. Social Media Use, 2024/2023); U.S. Census Bureau (ACS/Decennial) for Chenango County population and age structure.
• These are best-available estimates; actual local adoption can vary by town, broadband access, and community groups.