Champaign County

Here are the latest high-level demographics for Champaign County, Ohio (U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Census; 2019–2023 ACS 5‑year; 2023 Population Estimates):

• Population: ~38,900 (2023 est.); 38,714 (2020 Census)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~42
  • Under 18: ~22–23%
  • 65 and over: ~19%
• Sex: ~50% female, ~50% male
• Race/ethnicity (ACS; shares may not sum to 100% because Hispanic is an ethnicity):
  • White alone (non-Hispanic): ~91%
  • Black or African American alone: ~2–3%
  • Asian alone: ~0.4%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
  • Two or more races: ~4–5%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2%
• Households and housing:
  • Households: ~15,400
  • Average household size: ~2.5
  • Average family size: ~3.0
  • Family households: ~66% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~73–75%

Champaign County, Ohio snapshot (estimates)

• Population/density: ~38.8K residents; roughly 85–95 people per square mile (rural, spread-out settlement), which raises last‑mile broadband costs and coverage gaps versus Ohio’s statewide average density.
• Email users: 26–28K residents use email (at least monthly). Method: residents 13+ (85% of population) × internet access (≈85–90%) × email adoption among internet users (≈90–95%). Daily users likely ~20–22K.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–34: ~35–40%
  • 35–64: ~45–50%
  • 65+: ~12–18% (growing as senior internet use rises)
• Gender split among email users: roughly even (about 50–51% female, 49–50% male), mirroring the county’s population.
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband subscription: approximately 82–88% of households; strongest around Urbana and along main corridors; more fixed‑wireless/satellite reliance in rural townships.
  • Mobile dependence: ~10–15% of households are smartphone‑only for home internet.
  • Public access: libraries/schools and community Wi‑Fi are important supplemental access points.

Notes: Figures are derived by scaling recent Census/ACS connectivity indicators and national Pew email-use benchmarks to local population; use as directional estimates rather than precise counts.

Champaign County, OH mobile phone usage — summary and how it differs from Ohio overall

High-level user estimates

• Population context: ~39,000 residents; ~30,000 adults (18+).
• Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ~27,000–29,000 adults (about 90–95% of adults), slightly below the statewide penetration due to older age mix and rural coverage gaps.
• Smartphone users: ~25,000–27,000 adults (about 85–90% of adults). This runs a few points lower than Ohio’s statewide adult smartphone adoption (≈90–92%).
• Mobile-only home internet users: estimated 20–25% of households rely primarily on cellular data or mobile hotspots for home internet, higher than the Ohio average (≈15–18%), reflecting rural last‑mile gaps and the expansion of fixed wireless access.

Demographic patterns (and how they differ from the state)

• Age
  • 18–34: ~95%+ smartphone adoption, similar to Ohio; heavy app and video usage; higher 5G take‑up.
  • 35–64: ~90–93% smartphone adoption, near state levels.
  • 65+: ~70–80% smartphone adoption, lower than Ohio’s 65+ average; Champaign’s older share and rural pockets lift the proportion of basic/older devices and voice/text‑centric use.
• Income and plan type
  • Higher share of prepaid and value MVNO plans than statewide (roughly a quarter to a third of lines vs ~20% in Ohio), driven by price sensitivity and strong retail presence of regional/MVNO brands.
  • Device mix skews somewhat more Android than Ohio overall (Android likely a clear majority), tied to price points and prepaid channels.
• Household connectivity
  • More “mobile-first” households: greater reliance on smartphones or fixed wireless for primary internet than Ohio averages, especially outside Urbana, Mechanicsburg, St. Paris, and North Lewisburg.
  • Work/commute patterns (Dayton/Springfield/Columbus corridors) mean daytime usage spikes on US‑68, US‑36, SR‑4, and SR‑29; off-peak home usage leans on LTE/5G fixed wireless where available.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 4G LTE is broadly available along main corridors and in population centers. Between towns and on some rural roads, indoor coverage varies noticeably by carrier, with dead or weak zones more common than in Ohio’s suburban/urban counties.
• 5G availability
  • Low‑band 5G: present from all three national carriers in and around Urbana and the larger villages; fills coverage but doesn’t always boost speed.
  • Mid‑band 5G (capacity layers): patchier than in Ohio’s metros. T‑Mobile typically shows the widest mid‑band footprint first; Verizon/AT&T capacity 5G (C‑band/DoD) is concentrated near towns and high-traffic routes. This results in more frequent fallbacks to LTE in rural areas than the Ohio average.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA): T‑Mobile and Verizon FWA are meaningfully available around Urbana and along major routes; availability thins with distance from towers. FWA take‑up is higher than state average where cable/fiber are limited.
• Backhaul and tower density: Fewer macro sites per square mile than suburban Ohio; some sectors lack fiber backhaul, which can constrain mid‑band 5G upgrades and peak speeds compared with statewide norms.
• Public safety and coverage parity: FirstNet (AT&T) presence is improving resiliency for emergency services, but parity between public‑safety and consumer coverage still varies in fringe rural spots.

What stands out versus Ohio overall

• Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration and a larger 65+ gap.
• Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and a more budget‑leaning device mix.
• More mobile‑only or mobile‑primary households and higher FWA adoption due to limited wireline options in parts of the county.
• Greater coverage variability between carriers once you leave town centers; more frequent LTE/5G low‑band use and fewer mid‑band 5G zones than state urban averages.
• Network load is corridor‑centric (commuter routes), while many rural areas remain capacity‑constrained compared with statewide metro benchmarks.

Notes on method and sources

• Estimates triangulate county demographics from recent ACS releases with national smartphone adoption by age/income (Pew Research, 2023–2024) and statewide adoption patterns; infrastructure points synthesize carrier 5G build claims and FCC coverage/fixed-wireless availability maps as of 2024. Because carrier footprints and FWA qualification change quickly, local availability should be verified by address for precise planning.

Below is a concise, locally tuned snapshot for Champaign County, Ohio. Figures are best-available estimates derived from U.S. Census/ACS demographics and recent Pew Research Center social media usage benchmarks, adjusted for a rural Midwest county profile.

Quick size and access

• Population: ≈39,000 (2023 est.)
• Internet access: ~85% of households have broadband; smartphone ownership ~90%+ among adults (national benchmark).
• Estimated social media users:
  • Adults (18+): ~30,000; ≈72% use at least one platform → ~21,500 users
  • Teens (13–17): ~2,300; ≈95% use social → ~2,200 users
  • Total 13+ users: ≈23,500–24,000

Age mix and how they use it

• Teens (13–17): Heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat; group chats and short video dominate; school sports, trends, and creators outside the county.
• 18–29: Multi-platform; Instagram/TikTok for discovery and entertainment; Facebook for events/groups; high daily video and messaging.
• 30–49: Facebook is the hub (Groups, Marketplace, school/team updates); YouTube for how-to and family content; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest for projects/recipes; TikTok adoption growing but still minority.
• 65+: Facebook first (family, local news, church/community); YouTube second; limited use of others.

Gender tendencies

• Women: Higher use of Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; strong participation in Groups (parent/booster, church, buy-sell-trade) and Marketplace.
• Men: Higher use of YouTube, Reddit, X (Twitter); follow sports, how‑to, local governance/public safety updates.

Most‑used platforms (adult penetration in Champaign County, estimated)

• YouTube: 80–85% of adults
• Facebook: 72–75% (above national average in rural areas)
• Instagram: 40–45%
• TikTok: 28–32%
• Snapchat: 25–30% (skews under 30)
• Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
• LinkedIn: 20–25% (below national avg; concentrated among healthcare, education, public sector, management)
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• WhatsApp: 15–20%
• Reddit: 12–18%

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook Groups are the community backbone: school closures, youth/HS sports, county fair/4‑H, road work, weather, local politics, lost & found.
• Marketplace is heavily used for vehicles, tools, farm/outdoor gear, furniture—high response to photo‑rich, price‑clear listings.
• Video first: Short‑form (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) gets strong reach; many cross‑post TikTok content to Reels for local discovery.
• Peak engagement: Evenings (7–9 pm) and weekend mornings; weather events and school announcements spike real‑time attention.
• Trust flows through local voices: Posts from known community members, coaches, churches, and small businesses outperform brand‑only messaging.
• Deals and causes: Coupons, giveaways, sponsorships of school teams/benefits perform well; clear calls to action matter.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default for adults; Snapchat dominates among teens; SMS still widely used for coordination.

Notes and confidence

• County‑level social metrics aren’t directly published; figures above interpolate state/national platform usage by local age mix and rural skew. Treat platform percentages as directional ranges rather than exact point estimates.