Armstrong County

Here are concise, recent demographics for Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.

Population

• 2023 population estimate: ~64,600
• 2020 Census: 65,558

Age

• Under 5 years: ~4.7%
• Under 18 years: ~20%
• 65 years and over: ~24%

Sex

• Female: ~50.8%
• Male: ~49.2%

Race and Hispanic/Latino origin

• White (alone): ~95–96%
• Black or African American (alone): ~1–1.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (alone): ~0.2%
• Asian (alone): ~0.3%
• Two or more races: ~2–2.5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~1–1.5%

Households

• Total households: ~27,200
• Persons per household (avg): ~2.33
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; 2023 Population Estimates Program).

Armstrong County, PA — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Population baseline: ~65,000 residents; older-than-average age profile.
• Estimated email users: 52,000–56,000 (≈80–86% of all residents; ≈90–95% of adults).
• Age pattern (adoption rates): 18–29: ~98–99%; 30–49: ~98%; 50–64: ~93–96%; 65+: ~85–90%.
• Age mix among email users (approx share): 18–29: ~14%; 30–49: ~32%; 50–64: ~26%; 65+: ~28% (county skews older).
• Gender split among users: near parity, ~51% female / 49% male.

Digital access and trends

• Household internet subscription: roughly 83–86% (including cellular-only plans); smartphone-only households ~12–15%.
• Fixed broadband availability: about 85–90% of addresses have 100/20 Mbps options in/near boroughs; outlying townships rely more on DSL or fixed wireless, with some underserved pockets.
• Mobile coverage: broad 4G/5G along populated corridors; terrain creates dead zones in valleys/hollows.
• Trajectory: gradual gains from state/federal broadband grants and incremental fiber builds; senior adoption rising, especially via smartphones.

Local density/connectivity context

• Population density ≈95 residents per square mile (well below Pennsylvania’s average), which raises per-mile build costs and slows last-mile upgrades.

Note: Figures are synthesized from county population and national/PA usage benchmarks.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania

User estimates (orders of magnitude, not exact counts)

• Population baseline: About 65,000 residents.
• Residents using any mobile phone: 56,000–60,000 (roughly 88–92% of residents), slightly below statewide penetration because of older age and rurality.
• Residents using smartphones: 48,000–53,000 (about 74–82% of residents; 85–90% of mobile users). This is a few points lower than Pennsylvania overall.
• Mobile-only internet users (adults who rely on a smartphone for home internet): about 16–18% locally vs roughly 12–14% statewide, reflecting gaps in affordable wired broadband and higher uptake of mobile hotspots and fixed wireless in rural areas.

Demographic breakdown (how usage varies)

• Age
  • 65+: Armstrong skews older (roughly 22–24% of residents). Smartphone adoption among seniors is lower than the state average (about 60–70% locally vs ~75–80% statewide). A noticeable minority of older residents still use basic/flip phones, raising the county’s overall feature‑phone share (about 8–12% vs 5–7% statewide).
  • 18–44: Near‑universal mobile ownership; smartphone adoption >90%, similar to the state, with heavier app, streaming, and hotspot use where home broadband is weak.
  • Teens: High smartphone prevalence, but overall teen share of the population is smaller than in many suburban counties; parental controls and prepaid lines are common.
• Income and plan type
  • Median household income is lower than the state average, so prepaid and MVNO plans see relatively higher uptake. The 2024 wind‑down of the Affordable Connectivity Program has likely pushed some households to rely more on phones/hotspots or to downgrade plans.
• Geography within the county
  • Boroughs and river towns (e.g., Kittanning, Ford City, Freeport corridor) show smartphone and data‑plan usage closer to statewide norms.
  • Outlying and hilly townships see more coverage variability; adoption includes more basic phones and conservative data plans, plus higher use of signal boosters/hotspots.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • Verizon and AT&T have the most consistent rural coverage and are the default choice for many emergency services and commuters; T‑Mobile works well along main corridors but can be patchier in interior valleys.
  • 5G low‑band is broadly present along major routes; mid‑band 5G is concentrated near population centers and highways (e.g., US‑422/PA‑28 corridor) with many interior areas still leaning on LTE.
• Terrain effects
  • Ridges and river valleys create shadowed zones; tower density is lower than in urban PA. Residents report dead spots on local roads and inside some homes and schools without boosters.
• Speeds and reliability
  • Median mobile speeds are generally below statewide averages, with more variability by location and carrier. Congestion shows up around school dismissal and weekend events.
• Home internet substitutes
  • Where cable is absent or DSL is poor, residents turn to:
    • Mobile hotspots on existing phone plans
    • Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) from Verizon/T‑Mobile where available
    • Satellite (including newer low‑earth‑orbit options)
  • FWA adoption is higher than the state average in unserved/underserved pockets and contributes to higher mobile data consumption.
• Public safety and institutions
  • AT&T FirstNet is widely used by public safety agencies. Schools and libraries provide essential Wi‑Fi offload for students and seniors.

How Armstrong County differs from Pennsylvania overall

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration, driven by an older age profile and rural coverage gaps.
• Higher share of basic/feature phones, especially among seniors.
• Greater reliance on Verizon/AT&T for coverage consistency; T‑Mobile share is lower than in urban/suburban counties.
• More variable speeds and more dead zones due to topography and sparser tower placement.
• Higher propensity to rely on mobile data for home connectivity (hotspots and FWA) where cable/fiber options are limited or unaffordable.
• Plan mix tilts more toward prepaid/MVNO offerings and conservative data caps; ACP’s lapse likely had a bigger local impact than in higher‑income parts of the state.

Method notes and caveats

• Estimates combine recent ACS population structure, Pew Research smartphone ownership by age/rurality, and typical rural PA coverage/deployment patterns, adjusted for Armstrong County’s older age and terrain. Figures are presented as ranges to avoid false precision. Actual carrier performance and availability vary by neighborhood; for address‑level detail, consult current carrier and FCC maps or local speed‑test data.

Armstrong County, PA — Social media snapshot (estimates)

Headline numbers

• Population: ~64–65K residents
• Estimated social media users: 39K–44K
  • 60–68% of total residents
  • ~70–78% of residents age 13+
• Internet context: rural/older skew means slightly lower penetration than national averages, with heavier Facebook and YouTube use

User mix

• By age (share of social media users)
  • 13–17: 7–9%
  • 18–29: 15–18%
  • 30–49: 30–34%
  • 50–64: 23–27%
  • 65+: 15–20%
• By gender (share of social media users)
  • Female: 52–55%
  • Male: 45–48%

Most‑used platforms (monthly reach among local social media users)

• YouTube: 78–85%
• Facebook: 72–80% (Groups and Marketplace especially strong)
• Instagram: 32–40%
• TikTok: 28–36%
• Snapchat: 22–30%
• Pinterest: 25–33% (skews female 35–54)
• X (Twitter): 12–18%
• LinkedIn: 9–14% (lower due to fewer white‑collar hubs)
• Reddit: 8–12% Note: Facebook and YouTube rank highest; Instagram/TikTok heavily concentrated under 35. Pinterest over‑indexes among women; X/Reddit remain niche.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first Facebook: Local news, school sports, fire/EMS updates, yard sales, lost/found pets, road closures, and township announcements drive comments and shares. Marketplace is a primary channel for vehicles, tools, farm/outdoor gear, and household items.
• Video dominance: YouTube for how‑tos, repairs, outdoor/hunting content; Reels/Shorts/TikTok for quick local highlights and promotions. Cross‑posting short vertical video boosts reach.
• Event‑driven spikes: Severe weather, school closures, fair/festival weeks, elections, and high‑school sports produce sharp engagement surges.
• Messaging over forms: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat DMs are common for inquiries; many SMBs convert via DMs rather than web forms.
• Timing: Engagement concentrates on weekday evenings (roughly 7–10 pm) and weekend mornings (8–11 am). Daytime peaks align with lunch hours and school dismissal.
• Trust and tone: Locally sourced, plain‑spoken posts with faces, names, and clear photos outperform polished corporate creative. Rumor correction and timely updates build loyalty.
• Commerce path: “Post + Group share + Marketplace listing + Messenger DM” is a typical funnel. Simple offers (price, pickup location, availability) outperform long captions.

How these numbers were derived

• County population and age structure from recent Census/ACS estimates; platform reach and age/gender splits benchmarked from Pew Research Center and U.S. rural adoption studies, then adjusted for Armstrong’s older/rural profile. Figures are directional ranges, not official counts.