Lincoln County

Lincoln County, Oklahoma — key demographics (latest available U.S. Census Bureau data; primarily 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates, plus 2023 population estimate). Values rounded for clarity.

Population size

• Total population: 35,366 (2023 estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18 to 64: ~58–59%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Sex

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~81%
• Black or African American alone: ~1–2%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~9%
• Asian alone: ~0.5–1%
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~5–6%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~6%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~76–77%

Households and housing

• Total households: ~13,400
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~69% (married-couple families: ~55%)
• Households with children under 18: ~27%
• Nonfamily households: ~31% (living alone: ~27%; 65+ living alone: ~12%)
• Owner-occupied housing: ~79%
• Renter-occupied: ~21%

Insights

• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a notable American Indian population.
• Older median age than the U.S. overall, indicating a relatively aging population.
• High owner-occupancy and a majority of family households; modest household sizes.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 (5-year) and Population Estimates Program (V2023).

Lincoln County, OK email usage snapshot (2025)

• Population and users: About 34,000 residents; roughly 26,000 are 18+. Estimated email users: about 22,000 residents (about 65% of total; about 84% of adults), based on Pew internet/email adoption benchmarks applied to local demographics.
• Age mix of email users (share of user base): 18–29 about 18%; 30–49 about 31%; 50–64 about 27%; 65+ about 24%. Adoption is highest among 18–49 (roughly mid-90%s), solid for 50–64 (around 90%), and lower for 65+ (roughly mid-70%s).
• Gender split among users: female about 51%, male about 49%, mirroring the county’s slight female majority.
• Digital access trends: Around 73% of households subscribe to a home broadband service (ACS trend for similar rural Oklahoma counties), and roughly 18–22% of adults rely primarily on smartphones for internet access. Fixed broadband is available to an estimated 80%+ of addresses, with fastest options clustered in and around Chandler, Stroud, and along I-44 and I-40; pockets in eastern and southern rural areas still see sub-25 Mbps service.
• Density/connectivity context: About 35 people per square mile across roughly 960 square miles; proximity to the OKC–Tulsa corridors supports stronger ISP presence and 4G/5G coverage along major highways.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Lincoln County, Oklahoma

Context

• Rural county east of Oklahoma City with small towns (e.g., Chandler, Stroud, Prague) and large agricultural areas. Rural settlement patterns and lower household density shape both adoption patterns and infrastructure availability.

User estimates and adoption (household-based)

• Lincoln County households are less likely to report having a smartphone than the Oklahoma state average, and more likely to lack any internet subscription. This translates into a smaller absolute base of smartphone-using households and a higher share of households that either rely on cellular data alone or have no subscription at all.
• Households that rely primarily or exclusively on cellular data for home internet are materially more common in Lincoln County than statewide, reflecting gaps in affordable wired broadband and longer last-mile distances typical of rural areas.
• Voice usage patterns tilt more heavily toward wireless-only (no landline) than the U.S. average, consistent with broader Oklahoma trends of high wireless-only adoption.

Demographic breakdown (directional differences vs. Oklahoma)

• Age: Older residents make up a larger share of Lincoln County than the state average, and smartphone adoption among adults 65+ is lower than among younger adults. This age structure helps explain lower overall smartphone penetration compared with Oklahoma as a whole.
• Income: Median household income is below the state average. Lower-income households are more likely to be mobile-dependent (cellular data plans instead of wired broadband) and to use prepaid mobile services—patterns that are more pronounced in Lincoln County than statewide.
• Education: A lower share of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher (relative to the state average) correlates with lower broadband subscription rates and slightly lower smartphone uptake.
• Rurality: A higher rural share than the state average is associated with fewer provider options and higher effective prices per Mbps, increasing mobile-dependence for everyday connectivity.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Coverage footprint: 4G LTE is broadly available across towns and primary corridors; 5G coverage is concentrated near population centers and along major travel routes (e.g., the Turner Turnpike/Route 66 corridor), with performance and availability thinning in sparsely populated areas. This creates a sharper urban–rural performance gradient than seen in Oklahoma’s metro counties.
• Spectrum and carriers: AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon all operate in the county; 5G mid-band deployments (where available) deliver markedly higher speeds in town centers than in outlying areas. Fixed wireless (5G/LTE home internet) plays a larger role in bridging service gaps than it does statewide, with uptake strongest where cable/fiber is absent or costly.
• Backhaul and last mile: Fewer fiber-fed cell sites outside town centers and longer backhaul routes constrain peak and consistent speeds. New fiber builds along highway corridors improve sector capacity, but interior rural areas lag behind state averages.
• Emergency and public safety: FirstNet coverage is present along major corridors and population centers, mirroring carrier macronetwork footprints; interior rural coverage is generally reliable for voice/SMS but less consistent for high-throughput data.
• Dead zones and reliability: More frequent signal fades and capacity constraints appear on county roads and in wooded or rolling terrain away from highways, producing a larger reliability gap versus state averages. Residents report greater reliance on Wi‑Fi calling at home in fringe areas.

How Lincoln County differs from statewide patterns

• Lower smartphone household penetration and higher no-subscription rates than the Oklahoma average.
• Higher reliance on cellular data for home internet where wired broadband is unavailable or unaffordable, leading to greater mobile-only dependence than the state overall.
• Sharper divide between corridor/town coverage (including 5G with good throughput) and rural interior coverage (4G with variable capacity), whereas metro counties show more uniform 5G availability.
• Greater prevalence of prepaid plans and budget MVNOs compared to metro counties, reflecting price sensitivity.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA) fills more of the broadband gap in Lincoln County than in urban Oklahoma, and its performance variability (signal quality, congestion) more directly influences daily mobile experience.

Implications

• Network investment focused on fiber backhaul to rural cell sites and in-fill sites between towns would yield outsized gains compared with similar investments in already well-served metro areas.
• Programs that pair device affordability with subsidized service (e.g., ACP replacement initiatives) are likely to shift additional households from no-subscription to mobile-first connectivity.
• Public anchor institutions (schools, libraries, clinics) remain critical for high-speed access in parts of the county; coordinated permitting and pole access can accelerate both fiber and FWA improvements.

Source notes

• The patterns above synthesize the latest available county-level adoption and subscription characteristics from the American Community Survey (Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions, table S2801, 5‑year estimates) together with federal coverage/availability datasets and carrier deployment disclosures through 2024. The key differences highlighted are consistent with rural–state contrasts observed across Oklahoma.

Social media usage in Lincoln County, Oklahoma (2025, modeled local estimates)

Scope and method

• Figures are county-level estimates derived from the county’s adult population and current U.S./Oklahoma usage benchmarks (Pew Research 2024; ACS). Platform percentages reflect share of adults who use each platform; users may use multiple platforms.

County snapshot and user base

• Population: ~34–35K; adults (18+): ~27K
• Internet access: ~75–80% of households; adult smartphone adoption: ~80–85%
• Adults using at least one social platform: 78–82% (21–22K people)

Most-used platforms (share of adults; overlaps by design)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• Pinterest: ~30%
• LinkedIn: ~30%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Snapchat: ~27%
• X (Twitter): ~22%
• Reddit: ~22%
• Nextdoor: small footprint (<10%), concentrated in town centers

Approximate user counts (18+, rounded; overlaps)

• YouTube ~22–23K; Facebook ~18–19K; Instagram ~12–13K; TikTok ~9K; Snapchat ~7K; Pinterest/LinkedIn ~8–9K each; X/Reddit ~6K each

Age profile of social media users (share of local social users)

• 18–29: ~22–24%
• 30–49: ~38–40% (largest segment)
• 50–64: ~22–24%
• 65+: ~14–16% (heavily concentrated on Facebook and YouTube)

Gender breakdown (tendencies among adults)

• Overall social user base: ~52% women, ~48% men
• Platform skews:
  • More women: Facebook (≈72–75% of women vs 60–65% of men use it), Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Pinterest (strong female skew)
  • More men: YouTube, Reddit, X (Twitter)
  • Near-even: LinkedIn

Behavioral trends (what people actually do)

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups are the county’s hub for local news, school updates, church and civic activities, and Buy/Sell/Trade. Facebook Marketplace is a primary channel for person-to-person commerce.
• Weather and emergencies: Spikes in Facebook and YouTube consumption during severe weather; residents follow local pages and Oklahoma City TV meteorologists for live coverage and road/utility updates.
• Video-heavy habits: YouTube dominates for how‑to/DIY, agriculture and equipment repair, storm tracking, hunting/fishing, and high school sports highlights.
• Youth behavior: 18–29s favor Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat for daily communication and short‑form video; creation rates are lower than consumption, with content skewed to country life, sports, and local events.
• Small business presence: Independent retailers, trades, and services lean on Facebook Pages/Groups and Instagram posts/reels for reach; promotions, giveaways, and hyperlocal sponsorships outperform generic ads.
• Timing: Engagement peaks before work (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekend mornings show strong Marketplace and group activity.
• Rural diffusion: Nextdoor and LinkedIn have niche use; adoption rises in the larger towns, while dispersed rural areas rely more on Facebook + Messenger.
• Multi-homing is the norm: Adults commonly use 3–4 platforms; Facebook for community/commerce, YouTube for learning/entertainment, and one of Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat for social.

Key takeaways

• Reach: Facebook and YouTube provide the broadest county-wide reach; Instagram is the next-best for under‑40.
• Seniors: Facebook is the most reliable way to reach 65+.
• Youth: Short‑form video (IG Reels/TikTok) is essential to reach under‑30.
• Commerce: Marketplace and local buy/sell groups are central to peer-to-peer and micro‑retail activity.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat carry much of the day‑to‑day coordination among families and friend groups.