Coshocton County

Population

• Total population: about 36,000 (2023 estimate)

Age

• Under 18: about 22%
• 65 and over: about 21%
• Median age: about 43 years

Sex

• Female: about 50–51%
• Male: about 49–50%

Race and ethnicity

• White (alone): about 94–95%
• Black or African American (alone): about 1–2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (alone): about 0–1%
• Asian (alone): about 0–1%
• Two or more races: about 2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): about 1–2%

Households

• Total households: about 14,000–15,000
• Average household size: about 2.4–2.5
• Family households: roughly two-thirds of households
• Nonfamily households: roughly one-third of households

Coshocton County, OH (pop. ~36.5k; ~65 people/sq. mile) is largely rural, so email usage tracks general internet access.

Estimated email users

• 26,000–31,000 residents. Method: population × (internet users ~80–90%) × (email use among internet users ~90–95%). Email is near‑universal among internet users.

Age distribution (approx.)

• 18–34: 25–30% of email users (very high adoption).
• 35–54: 35–40%.
• 55–64: ~15%.
• 65+: 15–20% (lower adoption than younger adults). Basis: Pew Research internet adoption by age (2023/24); scaled to a typical rural age mix.

Gender split

• Roughly 50/50; mirrors county population, with negligible gender gap in internet/email use.

Digital access trends and local connectivity

• About three‑quarters to four‑fifths of households have a broadband subscription (U.S. Census Bureau ACS S2801, recent years), with remaining households relying on mobile-only, legacy DSL, satellite, or having no subscription.
• Fiber and fixed wireless availability are expanding from the city of Coshocton into outlying areas; coverage can be spotty in hilly terrain.
• Smartphone dependence is notable among lower‑income and rural households, which can limit consistent email access despite ownership.

Notes: Estimates combine U.S./Ohio adoption benchmarks with county population and rural connectivity patterns. For precise figures, consult the latest ACS S2801 and FCC Broadband Map.

Below is a planning-grade snapshot of mobile phone usage in Coshocton County, Ohio, with estimates, demographic nuances, and infrastructure context. Figures are derived from national/state research (e.g., Pew), typical rural-Ohio patterns in ACS microdata (cellular data plan and broadband adoption), and carrier coverage trends in Appalachian Ohio. Treat numbers as ranges rather than point estimates; local validation is recommended.

Headline estimates (2024)

• Population context: ~36,000 residents; ~14,500 households; ~28,000 adults (18+).
• Adults using any mobile phone: 25,000–26,000 (about 90–93% of adults). Slightly below Ohio overall (typically 94–97%).
• Adults using smartphones: 22,000–23,000 (about 78–82% of adults). Below the Ohio average (roughly 84–88%).
• Households relying primarily on cellular data for home internet: 2,100–2,600 (about 14–18% of households), above the Ohio average (~9–11%).

How Coshocton differs from Ohio overall

• Adoption level: Smartphone ownership lags the state by several points, driven by older age structure, lower incomes, and a small Plain/Amish population that depresses smartphone uptake.
• Access pattern: Higher reliance on cellular-only internet at home due to patchy or costly wired options; state is more cable/fiber-centric.
• Plan mix: Higher share of prepaid/MVNO lines (estimated 35–45% of lines vs. ~25–30% statewide), reflecting price sensitivity and credit constraints.
• Network experience: More pronounced coverage gaps and lower average speeds outside the city and main corridors; state metros have broad mid-band 5G and higher median speeds.
• Device mix: More basic/flip phones among seniors; Ohio’s urban areas show higher senior smartphone adoption.

Demographic breakdown and implications

• Age: Seniors (65+) make up roughly 20–22% of the population (above the state share). Estimated senior smartphone adoption: ~55–65% locally vs. ~65–70% statewide. Expect 3,800–4,500 seniors with smartphones and 2,000–2,500 seniors using basic phones or none.
• Income: A larger share of households under $35,000 than the Ohio average. Price sensitivity drives:
  • Greater prepaid use and slower device upgrade cycles.
  • Higher “smartphone-only” internet use (estimated 20–25% of adults vs. ~13–16% statewide).
• Education and work: More blue-collar and outdoor work correlates with durable/basic devices and heavy reliance on voice/text plus lightweight data apps.
• Cultural/Plain communities: A small but meaningful Amish/Plain population (several percent) pulls down smartphone penetration by roughly 1–2 percentage points versus similar non-Plain rural counties.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is predominantly White; digital divide patterns are driven more by age, income, and geography than by race here.

Usage patterns

• Communication: Heavy use of voice/text and Facebook/Messenger, with steady but slower growth in video-centric apps compared with urban Ohio. Businesses commonly use SMS for scheduling and payments.
• Data reliance: Above-average smartphone-only adults and cellular home internet users for schoolwork, telehealth, and streaming, especially where cable/fiber is absent.
• Equipment: Higher uptake of signal boosters/hotspots in rural homes and small farms; longer handset replacement cycles than the state average.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Coverage geography: Solid voice/LTE coverage in the city of Coshocton and along primary corridors (US-36, SR-16, SR-83). Notable weak spots in valleys, wooded hollows, and low-density roads typical of the Appalachian Plateau.
• 5G availability:
  • Low-band 5G from major carriers is present in/near population centers and corridors, offering broad coverage but modest speed gains.
  • Mid-band 5G (e.g., C-band or n41) is more limited than in Ohio metros; best performance tends to concentrate in/near Coshocton and along key routes.
• Performance ranges (typical, not guaranteed):
  • In-town: ~50–200 Mbps where mid-band 5G is available; otherwise ~10–40 Mbps LTE/low-band 5G.
  • Rural areas: ~5–20 Mbps common; single-digit Mbps in some valleys or fringe areas.
• Home internet substitutes: Fixed wireless access (FWA) from national carriers is growing as an alternative to DSL or limited cable footprints; estimated 1,000–1,500 FWA subscribers countywide, a higher share than statewide.
• Backhaul and fiber: Middle-mile fiber follows main roads; some towers appear to rely on constrained backhaul, which can throttle peak speeds. Small-cell density remains low compared with Ohio cities.

Trends to watch (local vs. state)

• Faster growth in cellular-only households than state pace, as FWA expands and fills wired gaps.
• Gradual improvement in mid-band 5G along SR-16/US-36, but the coverage gap with Ohio metros will likely persist in the near term.
• Senior smartphone adoption inching up, yet likely to remain below state levels for several years.
• Continued high prepaid/MVNO share relative to Ohio average.

Method notes and confidence

• Estimates blend national adoption benchmarks (e.g., Pew), typical rural-Ohio ACS patterns (cellular data plan, broadband subscription), FCC coverage trends, and county demographics. Because county-level mobile ownership data are sparse, use ranges and validate with local carriers, the public library system, school districts, and health providers for program planning.

Here’s a concise, locality‑tuned picture of social media in Coshocton County, Ohio. Figures are estimates based on county demographics and recent U.S./rural usage benchmarks (Pew Research, DataReportal/Hootsuite, FCC), scaled to Coshocton’s population.

Snapshot

• Population base: ~36.5K residents
• Estimated social media users: 24K–27K (about 70–75% of total; ~80–85% of residents age 13+)

Most‑used platforms (share of local social media users; monthly use)

• YouTube: 80–90%
• Facebook: 70–80% overall; 80–90% among ages 30+
• Instagram: 35–45% (strong under 35)
• TikTok: 30–40% (highest under 30)
• Snapchat: 25–35% (teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: 20–28% overall; 30–40% of women
• Facebook Messenger: 65–75% (primary DM tool)
• WhatsApp: 10–20% (family/close‑knit circles, some cross‑border ties)
• X (Twitter): 12–18% (statewide news/sports)
• LinkedIn: 12–20% (healthcare, education, admin, sales)
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 3–8% (limited footprint)

Age mix of users (share of the local social media audience)

• 13–17: 6–8% (near‑universal YouTube/Snapchat/TikTok; lighter on Facebook)
• 18–29: 14–18% (heavy Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat; YouTube daily)
• 30–49: 30–34% (Facebook + Messenger core; YouTube; Instagram growing; some TikTok)
• 50–64: 24–28% (Facebook dominant; YouTube; Pinterest; modest TikTok adoption)
• 65+: 14–18% (Facebook + Messenger; YouTube “how‑to”/news; some Pinterest)

Gender breakdown

• Users overall: ~52% women, ~48% men (roughly tracks county makeup)
• Platform skew: Women over‑indexed on Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram; men over‑indexed on YouTube, Reddit, X. TikTok fairly balanced under 35.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community‑first usage: High engagement with local news, weather alerts, school and youth sports, church/faith groups, 4‑H/FFA, the county fair, lost‑and‑found pets, and buy/sell/trade groups. Facebook Groups and Marketplace are central.
• Video habits: Short, vertical video performs best (FB Reels, Instagram Reels, TikTok). How‑to, farm/outdoors, home repair, hunting/fishing, and local event clips do well on YouTube and Facebook.
• Messaging > posting for coordination: Facebook Messenger is the default for planning events, team communications, and quick business inquiries.
• Shopping behavior: Facebook/Instagram drive local discovery; Marketplace is a frequent first stop for secondhand goods. Clear value, limited‑time offers, and pickup options matter.
• Timing: Peaks 7–10 pm; secondary bumps 6–8 am and lunch hour. Weekend engagement is strong, especially Sunday evenings.
• Device reality: Mobile‑first consumption; mixed broadband quality outside town centers favors lightweight, short content and quick load times.
• Trust signals: Local faces, recognizable places, and tangible community benefits (sponsoring school teams, charity tie‑ins) lift response more than polished national‑style creative.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• County‑level platform data aren’t directly published; figures above are scaled from recent U.S./rural usage patterns and Coshocton’s older‑than‑average age profile. Treat platform percentages and age shares as directional ranges rather than precise measurements.