Beaver County

Here are key demographics for Beaver County, Oklahoma (latest available; primarily U.S. Census Bureau 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates and 2023 Population Estimates; MOEs apply):

• Population: ~5,000 (2023 est.)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~39
  • Under 18: ~24%
  • 65 and over: ~18–19%
• Sex:
  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive shares):
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~70%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~24%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~2%
  • Black, non-Hispanic: <1%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
  • Two or more/other, non-Hispanic: ~3%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~2,000
  • Average household size: ~2.6
  • Family households: ~66% of households
  • Owner-occupied: ~74% of occupied housing; renter-occupied: ~26%

Beaver County, OK snapshot (estimates using rural U.S./Oklahoma adoption applied to local population)

• Population and density: ~5–6k residents across ~1,800 sq mi; ≈3 people per square mile (very sparse), which raises last‑mile connectivity costs.
• Estimated email users: ~3,200–3,800 residents (primarily adults).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: ~18–22% of users; very high usage (≈95%).
  • 30–49: ~28–32% of users; near‑universal usage (≈95%).
  • 50–64: ~25–30% of users; high usage (≈85–90%).
  • 65+: ~20–25% of users; moderate‑high usage (≈70–80%).
• Gender split: ~50/50 male–female among users; differences are minimal in email adoption.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband: ~65–75% of households; adoption lower outside towns due to distance from fiber/DSL plant.
  • Smartphone ownership: ~80–85% of adults; smartphone‑only internet users ~10–15%.
  • Access modes outside home: public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools), fixed wireless, and satellite help fill gaps.
  • Connectivity is stronger in town centers (e.g., Beaver and other hubs) and along highways; speeds and reliability drop on dispersed ranch/farm properties.
• Outlook: Ongoing fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts supported by state/federal broadband programs should gradually raise email and overall internet use.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Beaver County, Oklahoma (2024)

Headline estimates

• Residents: roughly 4,900–5,300.
• Unique mobile phone users (any mobile phone): about 3,900–4,400 people (≈80–88% of residents). This is a few points below the statewide share, driven by an older age profile and patchier coverage outside towns.
• Smartphone users: about 3,500–4,000 people (≈72–80% of residents). Statewide smartphone penetration is higher; Beaver County’s is pulled down by lower adoption among seniors and by households that share devices.

How Beaver County differs from Oklahoma overall

• More “mobile-only” internet: An estimated 25–35% of households rely primarily or exclusively on cellular data for home internet (vs roughly 17–20% statewide). Reasons: long drops to DSL/cable in the countryside, limited wired options outside towns, and strong LTE availability on highways.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration but higher dependence among those who have them: Seniors are less likely to own smartphones than in metro Oklahoma, yet many households without wired broadband lean heavily on phones for banking, school, and telehealth.
• Carrier mix and plan type: Greater reliance on AT&T/Verizon coverage in rural tracts; T-Mobile coverage is improving along main corridors but remains spottier off-highway than in cities. Prepaid and MVNO plans are used more often than statewide, reflecting cost sensitivity and coverage-based switching.
• Upgrade cycles: Devices tend to be kept longer (4+ years common), and accessories like signal boosters and high-gain antennas are more prevalent than in metro areas.
• Work use skew: Agriculture, energy, and trucking drive higher use of LTE hotspots, push-to-talk, and rugged devices relative to urban Oklahoma.

Demographic breakdown (directional)

• Age:
  • 18–34: near-statewide smartphone adoption (≈90–95%); heavy app/social and hotspot use.
  • 35–64: high adoption (≈85–92%); frequent use of mobile for work coordination across long distances.
  • 65+: materially lower adoption than statewide (≈65–75% have smartphones), but growing year over year, especially for telehealth and messaging with family.
• Income and education:
  • Lower-income households (under ≈$35k) show the highest smartphone reliance and mobile-only internet rates.
  • Households without a computer are more likely to have a smartphone only and to use unlimited or high-cap prepaid plans.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Hispanic households (a modestly larger share than Oklahoma overall) tend to report high smartphone adoption and higher mobile-only internet reliance, aligning with statewide patterns for Hispanic users but amplified by local broadband gaps.

Digital infrastructure notes

• Coverage pattern:
  • 4G LTE is the baseline countywide, with strongest, most consistent service along US-83, US-270/412, and through the town of Beaver.
  • 5G: Limited, mostly low-band coverage near population centers and major corridors; mid-band 5G is sparse compared to metro Oklahoma.
  • Off-highway ranchland and river-valley areas (Beaver River and tributaries) can have signal shadowing and drop-offs.
• Backhaul and local ISPs:
  • Fiber backbones and middle-mile exist along the main corridors and into towns via regional cooperatives/providers; many remote towers still depend on microwave backhaul, which can constrain peak capacity compared with urban Oklahoma.
  • Fixed wireless and satellite are common complements to mobile service in the countryside; where fiber reaches a street, mobile dependence drops sharply.
• Speed/experience:
  • Typical LTE performance is serviceable for messaging, navigation, and SD/HD video in town and along highways, but speeds and consistency trail state urban medians, especially during peak evening hours or in fringe areas.
• Resilience and roaming:
  • Cross-border roaming (into KS/TX networks) can occur near county lines. During outages, FirstNet/priority traffic on AT&T often maintains better continuity for public safety than consumer plans.

Trendline (2019–2024)

• Gradual increase in smartphone adoption among 65+ and in low-band 5G footprint, but not at the pace seen in Oklahoma’s metros.
• Mobile-only households have not declined as much as statewide; where fiber has been built, reliance drops, but the large rural footprint keeps the county’s mobile-only share elevated.
• T-Mobile’s coverage gains along corridors are noticeable, yet off-corridor reliability still favors AT&T/Verizon.

Planning takeaways

• Closing the gap with the state likely depends on: more fiber-fed tower backhaul, additional mid-band 5G sites off the main highways, and targeted affordability/device-upgrade programs for seniors and low-income households.
• For businesses and agencies operating countywide, multi-carrier or eSIM strategies plus external antennas/boosters can materially improve reliability versus single-carrier consumer plans.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are estimates synthesized from recent county population totals, American Community Survey device/broadband patterns for small rural counties, and 2023–2024 carrier coverage trends. Small-county sampling error is higher than for the state; ranges are provided to reflect that uncertainty.

Below is a concise, county-scaled estimate based on Beaver County’s small, rural profile (≈5,000 residents; 2020 Census) and state/rural benchmarks from recent U.S. surveys (e.g., Pew Research). Figures are modeled estimates, not locally measured counts.

Overall usage

• Estimated social media users (age 13+): 2,600–3,400 people (≈65–80% of residents 13+)
• Devices: overwhelmingly mobile-first (>90% primarily on smartphones)
• Frequency: majority daily; short check-ins multiple times/day

Age mix of users (share of local social users)

• 13–17: 10–12% (heavy on Snapchat/TikTok; light on Facebook posts but active in Groups via parents)
• 18–29: 18–22% (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; YouTube for entertainment/how‑to)
• 30–49: 30–35% (Facebook, Messenger, YouTube; rising Instagram/Reels)
• 50–64: 22–25% (Facebook, YouTube)
• 65+: 12–18% (Facebook, YouTube; lighter overall but growing)

Gender breakdown (of social users)

• Women: ~50–52%; stronger on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest
• Men: ~48–50%; stronger on YouTube, X (Twitter), Reddit
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger common across genders; Snapchat concentrated among teens/20s

Most‑used platforms among local social users (share of users active on each; estimated)

• Facebook: 70–80% (dominant hub for local news, Groups, Marketplace)
• YouTube: 75–85% (how‑to, equipment repair, school/church streams)
• Facebook Messenger: 60–70%
• Instagram: 30–40% (highest in 18–39)
• TikTok: 30–40% (strong in under‑35; growing among 35–49 via Reels cross‑posting)
• Snapchat: 25–35% (teens/20s)
• Pinterest: 15–25% (women 25–54)
• X (Twitter): 8–15% (sports, weather, state news)
• Reddit/WhatsApp: 5–10% each
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited presence in sparsely populated areas)

Behavioral trends

• Community-first: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups for school boosters, youth sports, 4‑H/FFA, church and rodeo events, county fair, lost & found, and volunteer fire/EMS updates.
• Marketplace mindset: Active local buy/sell/trade; vehicles, farm/ranch equipment, furniture; quick response to clear photos and prices.
• Weather-centric: Spikes during severe weather; users follow NWS, local emergency management, storm spotters. Shares/forwards are common.
• Local sports and faith: High engagement with high‑school sports highlights/streams and church service videos on Facebook/YouTube.
• Ag and outdoors: Content around cattle markets, auctions, fencing/tractor fixes, hunting/fishing performs well; YouTube for tutorials.
• Short‑form video: TikTok/Reels used for entertainment and “day-in-the-life” ranch/farm clips; cross‑posted to Facebook.
• Messaging habits: Teens/20s favor Snapchat; families and community orgs rely on Messenger group chats.
• Peak times (CT): Early morning (6:30–8:00), lunch (12:00–1:00), and evening (7:30–10:00). Weekend mornings see Marketplace browsing.
• Trust and sourcing: Higher trust in local pages (schools, county offices, churches, coaches) than in national outlets; posts from known community members spread fastest.
• Privacy/use patterns: Many practical users are “readers/sharers” more than original posters; closed/hidden Facebook Groups are common.

Notes and confidence

• Because county‑level platform data aren’t publicly reported, figures are modeled from rural/Oklahoma‑level usage patterns applied to Beaver County’s size and age structure. Treat percentages as directional ranges suitable for planning, not as audited measurements.