Linn County

Key demographics — Linn County, Oregon

Population size

• Total population: 129,749 (2020 Census), up 11.2% from 116,672 in 2010.

Age

• Median age: 39.4 years (ACS 2018–2022).
• Under 18: 23%; 18–64: 59%; 65 and over: 18% (ACS 2018–2022).

Gender

• Female: 50.3%; Male: 49.7% (ACS 2018–2022).

Race and ethnicity (mutually exclusive; Hispanic can be any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: 81.5%
• Hispanic or Latino: 10.5%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 4.3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: 1.7%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: 1.2%
• Black/African American, non-Hispanic: 0.6%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: 0.2% (ACS 2018–2022)

Households and housing

• Households: ~49,400 (ACS 2018–2022).
• Average household size: 2.62 (ACS 2018–2022).
• Family households: 66% of households (ACS 2018–2022).
• Owner-occupied housing: 66% of occupied units; renter-occupied: 34% (ACS 2018–2022).
• Median household income: ~$67,700; persons in poverty: ~12–13% (ACS 2018–2022).

Insights

• Steady growth since 2010, median age around 39, and a predominantly non-Hispanic White population with a notable Hispanic community.
• Household size is slightly above the Oregon average, and about two-thirds of households are owner-occupied.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Linn County, OR snapshot

• Population and density: 129,749 residents (2020 Census); ~56 people per square mile.
• Estimated email users: ~93,000 adult users (derived from ~78% adults and ~92% email adoption among U.S. adults).
• Age distribution of email use (applied locally using Pew benchmarks):
  • 18–29: ~95%
  • 30–49: ~96%
  • 50–64: ~92%
  • 65+: ~86% Interpretation: Email is near-universal for working-age adults; seniors remain the primary adoption gap.
• Gender split: Usage is near parity; men ~91%, women ~94%. Locally, this equates to roughly 46k male and 47k female adult email users.
• Digital access trends: About 88% of households have a broadband subscription and ~93% have a computer/smartphone (ACS 2018–2022, applied to Linn). Connectivity is strongest in the Albany–Lebanon–I‑5 corridor; more rural eastern areas show sparser fixed-broadband availability, driving greater reliance on mobile data.

Sources and basis: U.S. Census (2020) for population/density; ACS 2018–2022 indicators for household digital access; Pew Research (2021–2023) for email adoption by age and gender, scaled to Linn County’s population.

Mobile phone usage in Linn County, Oregon (latest available public datasets through 2023)

Headline takeaways

• High mobile adoption with above-average reliance on cellular data as the only home internet. Linn County looks slightly more mobile-dependent than Oregon overall, reflecting its mix of small cities and rural areas.
• 5G coverage from all three national carriers is established along the I‑5/US‑20/OR‑34 corridors (Albany–Lebanon–Sweet Home), with persistent coverage gaps in the Cascade foothills and canyons.

User estimates and adoption

• Population baseline: 129,749 (2020 Census). Households: ~51,000 (ACS 2022 5‑year).
• Smartphone presence by household (ACS S2801, 2022 5‑year, rounded): ~92% of households have a smartphone in Linn County versus ~93% statewide.
• Cellular data plan at home (ACS S2801):
  • Any cellular data plan: ~79% of Linn households (OR: ~81%).
  • Cellular data plan only (no other home internet): ~11% of Linn households (OR: ~8%). This indicates higher mobile-only reliance locally.
• No home internet subscription of any kind: ~12% of Linn households (OR: ~9%).
• Adult user estimate: With ~100,000 adults and adult smartphone ownership near the statewide norm, Linn County has on the order of 85,000–90,000 adult smartphone users. Mobile-only home internet users equate to roughly 5,500–6,000 households locally, a higher share than Oregon overall.

Demographic patterns (how Linn differs from Oregon)

• Age: Linn County’s median age is slightly younger than Oregon’s, but it has a meaningful 65+ cohort in rural areas. Older adults (65+) are less likely to own smartphones or subscribe to home broadband, contributing to higher mobile-only and no-subscription rates than the state average.
• Income and education: Lower median household income and lower bachelor’s attainment than the Oregon average correlate with:
  • A higher share of households relying solely on cellular data.
  • Slightly lower desktop/laptop ownership, increasing dependence on smartphones for connectivity.
• Geography (urban/rural split): The Albany–Lebanon urban cluster exhibits state-like smartphone adoption and 5G availability, while eastern and foothill communities (east of Sweet Home and along forested corridors) show:
  • More mobile-only households (cost and availability driven).
  • Greater incidence of coverage gaps and speed variability.

Digital infrastructure and network performance

• Mobile networks
  • Carriers: AT&T (including FirstNet), Verizon, and T‑Mobile all operate 5G in the Albany–Lebanon–Sweet Home axis and along I‑5. T‑Mobile’s mid‑band (n41) and Verizon C‑Band deployments are present in population centers, improving median downlink speeds and indoor coverage versus earlier LTE.
  • Coverage strengths: I‑5, US‑20, and OR‑34 corridors; city centers and suburbs.
  • Persistent weak spots: Cascade foothills and canyons east of Sweet Home, Quartzville/Green Peter vicinity, and forested/USFS lands toward Santiam Pass—areas where terrain and distance to sites reduce reliability and speeds.
• Fixed-infrastructure context (drives mobile reliance)
  • Cable/fiber availability is solid in Albany and parts of Lebanon (e.g., Xfinity cable; growing fiber footprints from regional incumbents), but DSL or fixed wireless remains prevalent in many outlying areas.
  • Rural telco/co‑op and WISP offerings fill gaps but can have variable performance; this pushes some households to depend on cellular data plans as a primary connection.
• Resilience and emergency communications
  • AT&T’s FirstNet coverage supports public safety across the county; wildfire and storm events in the Santiam/Cascade zones continue to highlight backhaul and power resiliency needs for both fixed and mobile sites.

How Linn County trends diverge from statewide

• Higher mobile-only internet reliance: About 11% of Linn households use a cellular data plan as their only home internet versus ~8% statewide, indicating greater dependence on mobile networks for core connectivity.
• Slightly higher share of households with no internet subscription: ~12% in Linn vs ~9% in Oregon, concentrated in lower-income and rural tracts.
• Similar smartphone presence but more device substitution: Household smartphone presence is only slightly below the state, but desktop/laptop availability is somewhat lower, so smartphones are more often the primary or sole computing device.
• Greater geographic disparity: Urban centers mirror state-level performance and 5G availability; rural east-county areas lag more sharply than the average rural Oregon area because of terrain and sparser infrastructure.

Implications

• Network planning: Continued mid‑band 5G infill and power/backhaul hardening east of Sweet Home and along canyon corridors would disproportionately benefit Linn compared with statewide averages.
• Digital equity: Programs lowering mobile and fixed broadband costs, and expanding rural fiber, will have outsized impact locally given the higher baseline of mobile-only households.
• Service mix: Carriers and ISPs should expect sustained demand for robust mobile data plans and fixed–mobile convergence products in Linn County’s rural zones, more so than in Oregon’s urban counties.

Social media usage in Linn County, Oregon (2025 snapshot)

Baseline

• Population: ~131,000 residents; adults 18+ ≈ 100,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 est.)
• Method note: Platform figures below apply Pew Research Center’s latest U.S. adult adoption rates to Linn County’s adult population to yield local-scale estimates.

Most-used platforms (adults, estimated local users)

• YouTube: 83% → ~83,000 adults
• Facebook: 68% → ~68,000
• Instagram: 47% → ~47,000
• Pinterest: 35% → ~35,000
• LinkedIn: 30% → ~30,000
• TikTok: 33% → ~33,000
• Snapchat: 27% → ~27,000
• X (Twitter): 22% → ~22,000
• Reddit: 22% → ~22,000
• WhatsApp: 21% → ~21,000

Age groups (patterns of use)

• 13–17: Very high video and messaging use; YouTube and TikTok dominate, with heavy Snapchat and Instagram activity. Facebook minimal.
• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube; Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok are core; Facebook secondary.
• 30–49: YouTube and Facebook dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok meaningful but below Instagram.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram/TikTok uptake is smaller but growing.
• 65+: Facebook remains primary; YouTube moderate; limited use of newer apps.

Gender breakdown (adult patterns)

• Overall usage is roughly balanced by gender.
• Skews by platform: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, and especially Pinterest; men over-index on Reddit, X, YouTube, and LinkedIn. TikTok is close to even.

Behavioral trends observed in similar-sized Oregon counties and reflected locally

• Community-first usage on Facebook: Events, school updates, local news, yard/estate sales, and buy/sell via Marketplace and Groups drive daily engagement.
• Video-first shift: Short-form video (Reels/TikTok) and YouTube DIY/outdoors content see strong watch time; local businesses increasingly use vertical video for reach.
• Messaging over public posting: Facebook Messenger, Instagram DMs, and Snapchat are primary for coordination among families, teams, and friend groups.
• Local discovery: Residents rely on Facebook Groups and search, Instagram location tags, and Google/YouTube for restaurants, trades, and services; reviews and word-of-mouth in groups heavily influence choices.
• Time-of-day peaks: Mobile, evening-heavy usage (after work/school), with secondary lunchtime and weekend morning spikes.
• Content that performs: Hyperlocal stories (schools, sports, road closures, weather/emergencies), deals from local businesses, and outdoors/rec content (hiking, fishing, camping) drive comments and shares.

Sources and method

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (site-by-site U.S. adult adoption rates applied to Linn County’s adult population to produce local estimates)
• Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022 (teen platform patterns)
• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey/QuickFacts (population baseline)

Note: Because platform providers and public sources do not publish county-level adoption, figures are best-available estimates derived from nationally representative rates applied to Linn County’s adult population. Behavioral insights reflect observed patterns in similar Oregon communities and local usage norms.