Divide County

Here are the most recent Census figures for Divide County, North Dakota.

Population

• Total: 2,195 (2020 Decennial Census)
• 2023 estimate: ~2,250 (U.S. Census Bureau)

Age

• Median age: ~48 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~21%
• 65 and over: ~26%

Sex

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race and Hispanic origin (ACS 2018–2022)

• White alone: ~94%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~3%
• Black or African American alone: <1%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~1,040
• Persons per household: ~2.1
• Family households: ~60% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~77%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates. Figures rounded; ACS values are estimates with sampling error.

• Context: Divide County, ND is ultra‑rural (about 2,195 residents in 2020 over ~1,294 sq mi; ~1.7 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: 1,400–1,600 residents use email at least occasionally. Method: ~1,700 adults; ~93% use the internet; ~92% of online adults use email, plus some teen users.
• Age pattern (share using email):
  • 18–44: very high adoption (≈95–98%); likely the largest share of daily users.
  • 45–64: high adoption (≈90–95%).
  • 65+: substantial but lower (≈70–85%); less frequent checking.
• Gender split: Roughly even (near 50/50), mirroring national email use patterns.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription likely around 75–85% (similar to rural ND averages), with ongoing fiber buildouts by regional co‑ops and ISPs; remaining gaps often served by fixed wireless or satellite.
  • Smartphone‑only internet access is present but minority (roughly 8–12%), higher in lower‑income and more remote households.
  • Mobile coverage strongest in towns and along main corridors; patchier on farm/ranch roads and far-flung homesteads.
• Takeaway: Despite very low population density and higher last‑mile costs, email usage in Divide County is widespread and near‑universal among working‑age adults, with older residents the main adoption gap. Estimates based on 2020 Census counts and national/rural usage benchmarks (e.g., Pew/ACS).

Below is a county-level snapshot built from public demographic patterns (ACS), rural vs. urban mobile-adoption research (e.g., Pew), FCC coverage trends as of 2023–2024, and western ND market conditions. Figures are estimates and ranges; they’re intended to be decision-useful, not exact counts. Emphasis is on how Divide County differs from North Dakota overall.

Quick context

• Highly rural, low density, older population; county seat: Crosby.
• Population: roughly 2,200–2,500; households: ~1,000–1,150.
• Terrain and distance between towns create coverage gaps off main corridors.

User estimates (adults and households)

• Adults (18+): ~1,900–2,100.
• Any mobile phone (smartphone or basic): 92–96% of adults → ~1,750–2,000 users.
• Smartphones: 75–82% of adults → ~1,450–1,700 users.
  • Contrast: ND statewide smartphone ownership is typically mid-to-high 80s (%), so Divide County runs ~5–10 points lower.
• Mobile hotspot use for home internet (phone tethering or dedicated hotspot): 8–15% of households (~80–170).
  • Contrast: Slightly higher reliance than state average in areas outside fiber/modern cable footprints.
• Smartphone-only households (no fixed broadband): 8–14%.
  • Contrast: At or a bit higher than ND overall, but skewed toward lower-income and rental households; seniors are less likely to be smartphone-only.
• Prepaid share: modestly higher than in metro ND, but many residents remain on postpaid plans with carriers that have better rural coverage.

Demographic breakdown driving usage

• Age:
  • 18–34: smartphone ownership ~90–95%.
  • 35–64: ~85–90%.
  • 65+: ~55–65% (notable basic/flip-phone retention).
  • Contrast: Divide has a larger 65+ share than ND overall, pulling down total smartphone penetration and app-centric usage.
• Income and housing:
  • Households under ~$50k are more likely to be smartphone-only for internet; renters show higher hotspot use.
  • Contrast: Because fixed broadband is less universal outside town centers, income-linked gaps are more pronounced than the state average.
• Occupation patterns:
  • Energy and agriculture users adopt rugged devices, push-to-talk, boosters, and machine-to-machine lines (farm equipment telemetry, tank monitors) at higher per-capita rates than statewide.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what’s distinctive)

• Macro coverage:
  • LTE is generally reliable along US-85 and ND-5 and in/near towns (e.g., Crosby). Off-corridor coverage thins quickly; valleys and tree belts create dead zones.
  • Contrast: ND’s metros have dense sites and smoother handoffs; Divide County experiences more fringe/roaming pockets and indoor weak spots.
• 5G availability:
  • Predominantly low-band 5G with LTE-like capacity; mid-band 5G (C-band/2.5 GHz) appears limited or focused on highways/town centers if present at all.
  • Contrast: Fargo–West Fargo, Bismarck–Mandan, and Grand Forks see broader mid-band 5G and higher average speeds.
• Carrier dynamics:
  • Coverage leaders tend to be carriers with established rural footprints; another national carrier may be more variable away from highways. Roaming near the Canadian border can trigger on-device network shifts.
  • Contrast: In-state urban markets show more even three-carrier performance.
• Tower density and backhaul:
  • Sparse macro-site grid for a large land area; reliance on long microwave hops where fiber backhaul is not nearby. New macro builds are selective and often colocations.
  • Contrast: State urban corridors have higher site density and fiber-fed small cells.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Fiber-to-the-premise likely in/near town centers via regional/co-op providers; outside town limits, service often shifts to fixed wireless, legacy DSL, or satellite. Starlink adoption is noticeable on ranches and far-flung homesteads.
  • Contrast: ND statewide has relatively strong fiber penetration for a rural state, but Divide’s out-of-town areas still show access gaps.
• Border effects:
  • Proximity to Canada can cause unintended roaming in northern parts of the county; residents often disable data roaming or lock carriers when near the line.
  • Contrast: This is a niche issue statewide, concentrated in border counties.
• Emergency communications:
  • FirstNet presence for public safety; volunteer EMS/fire and long transport times make coverage reliability critical. Many households and farms use signal boosters.
  • Contrast: Booster dependence is higher than in ND’s cities.

Observed/likely performance envelope

• In-town/highway: roughly 20–150 Mbps down on LTE/low-band 5G; lower latencies on fiber-fed sites.
• Off-highway/ranchlands: single-digit to ~30 Mbps, with greater variability and occasional no-signal pockets; text/voice may work where data struggles.
• Peak loads spike during harvest and around energy activity; networks can feel “bursty” compared with steadier urban demand profiles.

Trends that differ from North Dakota overall

• Lower overall smartphone penetration driven by an older age structure.
• Higher reliance on boosters, hotspots, and Starlink outside towns; slightly higher smartphone-only rates among lower-income households despite older demographics.
• Less mid-band 5G and lower average mobile speeds than major ND metros; more pronounced dead zones off corridors.
• More M2M/IoT lines per capita tied to agriculture and energy (private LTE/CBRS at worksites is more visible than in eastern ND).
• Border-roaming management is a routine user concern unique to the far-northwest counties.

Method notes

• Estimates blend ACS population/age structure, Pew rural ownership gaps, and FCC/mobile carrier coverage trends as of 2023–2024 for western ND. For planning, validate with current carrier maps, local co-op fiber build status, and drive tests between Crosby, Noonan, Ambrose, Fortuna, and along US-85/ND-5.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot for Divide County, ND. County-level platform data isn’t formally published, so figures are modeled from rural/North Dakota benchmarks (Pew Research, ACS) and small-county patterns; use as directional estimates.

At‑a‑glance

• Population: ~2,300; broadband households: ~70–78%
• Social media penetration (13+): ~65–75% → roughly 1,500–1,800 users
• Gender mix: ~52% male / 48% female; active social users skew slightly female on Facebook/Instagram

Platform usage (estimates, share of residents 13+)

• YouTube: 60–70% use; daily use ~35–45%
• Facebook: 55–65% use; daily use ~45–55% (most “daily” platform)
• Facebook Messenger: 45–55%
• Instagram: 20–30%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% overall; 70–85% of teens
• Pinterest: 12–18% overall; 25–35% of adult women
• X/Twitter: 5–10%
• LinkedIn: 6–10%
• Reddit: 5–8%
• Nextdoor: <5%

Age profile of active users (share of social users)

• 13–17: 8–10% (Snapchat/TikTok heavy; light Facebook)
• 18–29: 15–18% (Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat; event-driven Facebook)
• 30–44: 22–26% (Facebook primary; Instagram/TikTok secondary; Messenger)
• 45–64: 28–32% (Facebook + YouTube; some Pinterest)
• 65+: 18–22% (Facebook + YouTube; minimal elsewhere)

Gender tendencies

• Women: higher on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; engage with school, community, health, local shopping
• Men: higher on YouTube, Reddit, X; follow ag, outdoors, sports, how‑to

Behavioral trends

• Local-first: Heavy use of Facebook Groups/Pages for county news, school sports, events, church updates, obituaries, road/weather, and lost/found.
• Marketplace culture: Strong buy/sell/trade for vehicles, farm/ranch gear, furniture; trust rises with known locals.
• Messaging hubs: Group chats (Messenger/SMS/Snapchat) for teams, 4‑H, church, shift crews.
• Video habits: YouTube for repairs/how‑to, weather, hunting; TikTok/Reels for short entertainment; low posting, high lurking.
• Timing: Peaks 6–8 am, noon, and 7–10 pm; Sundays and storm days over-index. Activity dips during planting/harvest/calving; rises in winter.
• Content that performs: Kids/school wins, recognizable faces, local deals/giveaways, clear calls to action; skepticism toward unknown out-of-area promos.
• Access friction: Patchy coverage and data caps in spots; concise videos, text-first posts, and lightweight images perform reliably.

If you need tighter numbers, consider: Meta Ad Audience estimates for Divide County, short resident surveys, and school/community page insights.