Cavalier County

Key demographics – Cavalier County, North Dakota

• Population: 3,704 (2020 Census)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~50 years
  • Under 18: ~20%
  • 65 and over: ~27%
• Gender: ~51% male, ~49% female
• Race/ethnicity (shares of total population):
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~94–95%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~2–3%
  • Two or more races: ~2%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~2%
  • All other groups (each): <1%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~1,750–1,800
  • Average household size: ~2.0–2.1 persons
  • Family households: ~55–60% of households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census Demographic Profile; latest ACS 5-year estimates for household characteristics). Figures rounded; small margins of error apply for a small-population county.

Cavalier County, ND snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~3,700 (2020) spread over ~1,500 sq mi → ~2–3 people per sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ~2,900–3,100 residents (≈75–85% of total), driven by high adult adoption.
• Age mix (population): <18 ~19%; 18–34 ~16%; 35–64 ~39%; 65+ ~26%.
• Email adoption by age: <18 ~60–70%; 18–34 ~95%; 35–64 ~90%; 65+ ~75–80%.
• Gender split: roughly 50% female / 50% male; email use similar by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • About 80–85% of households maintain an internet subscription; towns (e.g., Langdon) often have fiber, while farms/ranches rely more on fixed wireless or legacy DSL.
  • 4G LTE coverage is widespread; 5G appears in/near towns. An estimated 8–12% of adults are “smartphone‑only” internet users.
  • Public libraries/schools provide important Wi‑Fi access for residents without reliable home broadband.
  • Ongoing rural fiber buildouts and state/federal grants are improving last‑mile connectivity, but very low population density keeps costs high and speeds variable outside towns.

Method: county population and age structure from Census-style profiles; email adoption rates applied from national/rural norms to derive local estimates.

Here’s a concise, decision‑oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Cavalier County, North Dakota, with emphasis on how it differs from state‑level patterns. Numbers are estimates based on ACS population patterns for small rural ND counties, Pew Research smartphone adoption by age, and known rural network deployments in ND. Use these as planning ranges, not precise counts.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude)

• Total mobile phone users (any mobile handset): roughly 3,000–3,200 people
  • Basis: county population ≈ 3,600–3,800; mobile usage near-universal among ages 18–64, somewhat lower among 65+.
• Smartphone users: roughly 2,700–3,000 people
  • Lower than statewide share due to an older age profile and a small but persistent feature‑phone cohort among seniors.
• Mobile-only home internet (no fixed broadband): likely 8–12% of households, below the statewide share (which is pulled up by urban renters). In towns served by rural fiber co‑ops, mobile is more often a backup than the primary connection.

Demographic breakdown driving usage

• Age: Skew older than the state overall. Seniors (65+) form a larger slice, which lowers smartphone penetration and average monthly mobile data use per capita. Feature‑phone and basic plan usage is more common than the state average.
• Households: More owner‑occupied, fewer multi‑tenant buildings than in cities (Fargo, Bismarck). That, plus strong fiber co‑op presence in and around towns, reduces reliance on mobile as the only internet connection.
• Occupation mix: Agriculture dominates. Per capita, there’s more machine telematics, grain bin sensors, and field IoT using LTE Cat‑M/NB‑IoT than in urban counties. This raises the “connections per adult” ratio even as human smartphone adoption runs a bit lower.
• Mobility patterns: Less long‑distance commuting than the state average and no oil‑patch boom effects; subscriber counts are stable season‑to‑season, with modest spikes in field season for hotspots and telemetry.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Radio access:
  • Broad LTE coverage from Verizon and AT&T across highways and towns; 5G is present mainly as low‑band (wide‑area) layers. Mid‑band 5G (C‑band/n41) that drives high speeds in cities is sparse or absent in much of the county.
  • T‑Mobile’s 600 MHz footprint reaches many rural stretches, but indoor coverage can lag the others in some townships; performance depends heavily on distance to the nearest site.
• Performance reality: Typical rural downlink speeds are often LTE‑like (e.g., 10–60 Mbps) with larger cell spacing; low‑band 5G improves reach more than capacity. Urban‑grade multi‑hundred‑Mbps 5G seen in Fargo/Grand Forks is uncommon here.
• Tower spacing and terrain: Fewer sites per square mile than the state’s metro counties; long inter‑site distances create dead zones on section roads and around shelterbelts or low spots. Reliability can dip during blizzards/ice when microwave backhaul is stressed.
• Backhaul/fiber:
  • Strong presence of rural fiber through cooperatives and the Dakota Carrier Network (DCN). Polar Communications (regional co‑op) serves much of the area and provides fiber backhaul to anchor locations and many cell sites.
  • Towns and community anchors (schools, clinics, public buildings) are typically on fiber rings; this helps stability in towns but doesn’t erase coverage gaps between towers.
• Border effects: As a border county, handsets can pick up Canadian carriers near the 49th parallel, leading to unintended roaming or band coordination constraints in 600/700 MHz. This issue is far more pronounced here than in most ND counties.
• Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T) is available on main corridors and in towns; agencies continue to rely on VHF for mission‑critical voice with LTE/5G for data. Coverage outside highway corridors can be spotty compared with metro counties.
• Affordability: With the federal ACP subsidy sunset, low‑income mobile data reliance may rise slightly, but the prevalence of affordable co‑op fiber in towns dampens a wholesale shift to mobile‑only.

How Cavalier County differs from ND statewide

• Adoption mix: Slightly lower smartphone penetration and higher feature‑phone share because the county is older than the state average.
• Network experience: More low‑band 5G/LTE and less mid‑band 5G capacity than metro ND (Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks), so real‑world speeds are lower and more variable.
• Mobile‑only households: Likely lower share than the state average thanks to widespread co‑op fiber in towns; mobile is more often a backup connection.
• IoT intensity: Higher ag/industrial IoT connections per capita than urban counties, shifting traffic toward telemetry and seasonal hotspots.
• Border constraints: Cross‑border roaming/interference considerations are a meaningful planning factor here but largely irrelevant in most of ND.
• Market dynamics: Fewer tower sites and less carrier redundancy than in metro counties; Verizon/AT&T tend to be favored for wide‑area reliability, with T‑Mobile improving but not yet matching metro‑area depth.

Assumptions and notes for planners

• Population base: Uses recent ACS‑style ranges for Cavalier County (≈3.6–3.8k). If you have current county totals and age pyramid, you can refine the user estimates quickly.
• Adoption rates by age: Anchored to recent Pew Research patterns (very high adoption for 18–64; lower for 65+). Local senior adoption drives the largest variance.
• Infrastructure: Qualitative assessments reflect FCC maps, ND co‑op fiber (DCN/Polar), and typical rural 5G rollouts; verify specific tower locations and band availability before committing to SLAs.

Below is a concise, county‑scaled snapshot based on Cavalier County’s demographics (small, older, rural) and recent Pew/statewide adoption patterns. Treat numbers as modeled estimates with ±5–10 percentage‑point uncertainty.

Baseline and user stats

• Population: ~3,700; adults (18+): ~3,100
• Adult social media users: 72–78% of adults ≈ 2,200–2,450
• Teens (13–17): small cohort but highly active; 90%+ on at least one platform

Age groups (share using social media monthly)

• 13–17: 90–95%
• 18–29: 90–95%
• 30–49: 80–88%
• 50–64: 70–78%
• 65+: 50–60%

Gender breakdown

• Users: ~52–55% women, 45–48% men
• Women over-index on Facebook (+5–8 pts), Instagram (+5–7), Pinterest (+15)
• Men over-index on YouTube (+8–10), X/Twitter (+3–5), Reddit (+4–6)

Most‑used platforms (adults, monthly; share of all adults)

• YouTube: 72–78%
• Facebook: 62–70%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–65%
• Instagram: 30–38%
• Snapchat: 22–30% (higher under 30)
• TikTok: 20–28%
• Pinterest: 20–26% (mostly women 30–64)
• X/Twitter: 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• Reddit: 6–10%

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: local groups (buy/sell, school sports, weather/roads), events, and Marketplace dominate engagement.
• YouTube usage is heavy but mostly passive: how‑to, ag equipment repair, hunting/outdoors, regional news recaps.
• Short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) consumption is rising; creation remains concentrated among younger users.
• Messaging is primarily Facebook Messenger and SMS; WhatsApp is niche.
• Engagement peaks evenings (8–10 pm) and during winter storms; seasonal spikes around planting/harvest and high‑school sports.
• Trust is local: posts by known community members, schools, churches, and county/city pages outperform outside brands; giveaways and event promos convert best.
• News discovery skews to Facebook shares from regional outlets; X/Twitter has a minor footprint.

Method note: Figures are modeled from Pew Research platform adoption (2023–2024) adjusted to Cavalier County’s older, rural age mix (Census/ACS).