Beaver County

Here are the latest high-level demographics for Beaver County, Pennsylvania (U.S. Census Bureau: 2023 Population Estimates; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year):

• Population: about 168,000 residents
• Age:
  • Median age: ~45 years
  • Under 18: ~19–20%
  • 18 to 64: ~57–58%
  • 65 and over: ~22–23%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~51–52%
  • Male: ~48–49%
• Race/ethnicity (percent of total population):
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~85%
  • Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~8–9%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
  • Other (incl. American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander), non-Hispanic: <1%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~71,000–73,000
  • Average household size: ~2.3 persons
  • Family households: ~60% of households (married-couple households ~45–47%)
  • One-person households: ~30–32%
  • Households with children under 18: ~24–26%

Beaver County, PA email usage (estimates)

• Users: ~140,000 residents use email at least occasionally (of ~168,000 total), based on ~92% adult and ~60% teen adoption.
• Age pattern: 18–29: ~98–99% use email; 30–49: ~95–97%; 50–64: ~88–92%; 65+: ~75–85%. The county skews older than the U.S. average, so overall adoption is a touch lower than big metros.
• Gender: Near parity; population is roughly 51% female, 49% male, and email usage mirrors this split.
• Digital access: ~85–88% of households have a broadband subscription; ~90% have a computer. About 10–15% are smartphone‑only internet users. Access is strongest in river‑valley towns/suburbs; rural north/western townships show more gaps.
• Trends: Cable broadband is the dominant fixed option; fiber is limited but slowly expanding. Fixed‑wireless/5G home internet availability is growing along main corridors, helping fill gaps where cable/DSL is weak.
• Density/connectivity: 168k residents across ~440 sq mi (380 people/sq mi). Most populated areas along the Ohio/Beaver rivers and I‑376 have multiple ISP choices; sparsely populated areas have fewer options and lower speeds.

Notes: Figures extrapolated from U.S./PA benchmarks (ACS, FCC maps, Pew) to Beaver County’s population and age profile.

Below is a practical, decision‑oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Figures are best‑effort estimates based on 2020–2023 population counts, Pew Research smartphone adoption rates, and typical rural/exurban adoption patterns in Western PA. They are intended for planning and should be validated with local surveys, carrier filings, or FCC Broadband Data Collection maps.

Headline estimates (2025 planning basis)

• Population: ~166,000–170,000; adults (18+): ~130,000–140,000.
• Mobile phone (any type) ownership among adults: ~93–95% → ~121,000–133,000 adult users.
• Smartphone ownership among adults: ~86–89% (slightly below PA average) → ~112,000–125,000 adult smartphone users.
• Teens (13–17): ~8,000–10,000; smartphone access ~92–96% → ~7,500–9,500 teen smartphone users.
• Smartphone‑only internet users (smartphone but no home broadband): likely somewhat above the PA average (driven by lower‑income tracts and rural townships), concentrated in river‑valley municipalities and select northern/western townships.

What’s different vs Pennsylvania overall

• Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration: Beaver County skews older and more exurban than the state average, pulling overall smartphone adoption down a few points relative to PA.
• Higher smartphone‑only reliance pockets: Low‑to‑moderate income neighborhoods (e.g., parts of Aliquippa/Ambridge/Monaca/Rochester) and some rural townships show higher rates of using a smartphone as the primary internet connection than the statewide average.
• More prepaid/MVNO use: Price sensitivity and variable indoor coverage in valleys lead to marginally higher prepaid and MVNO adoption than statewide norms.
• 5G availability and use lag metro PA: Mid‑band 5G is strong along I‑376 and denser river‑valley corridors but drops to LTE in outlying townships more often than state averages, lowering the share of users regularly on 5G.
• Carrier balance differs: Verizon historically has strong perceived coverage in Western PA; AT&T is competitive along major corridors; T‑Mobile has improved in towns but retains more rural gaps than in eastern/southeastern PA. This mix often diverges from statewide share patterns favoring denser metros.

Demographic breakdown (directional)

• Age:
  • 18–34: near‑saturation smartphone ownership (~95%+), heavy app/data usage.
  • 35–64: high ownership (~90–95%), frequent hotspot/FWA usage for secondary connectivity.
  • 65+: notably lower smartphone adoption (roughly mid‑70s to low‑80s percent), more basic‑phone retention and voice/SMS reliance than statewide.
• Income:
  • <$35k: lower smartphone ownership rates and higher prepaid/Android share; above‑average smartphone‑only internet reliance.
  • $35k–$75k: high smartphone adoption; cost‑optimizing plans (family/MVNO) common.
  • $75k+: near‑universal smartphone ownership; more multi‑line postpaid and device financing.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Black and Hispanic residents (smaller shares of the county overall) are more likely than white residents to be smartphone‑only internet users, consistent with national patterns; local impact is concentrated in a few municipalities.
• Urban/suburban vs rural:
  • Ohio River municipalities and suburbs along I‑376 see strong 4G/5G and higher streaming/social media intensity.
  • North/west rural townships have more LTE‑only pockets, more Wi‑Fi calling use indoors, and higher prepaid/MVNO penetration.

Digital infrastructure and performance notes

• Coverage pattern:
  • 4G LTE: broadly available across populated areas; terrain (river bluffs, hollows) creates localized dead/weak zones and indoor coverage challenges in older mill buildings.
  • 5G mid‑band (C‑Band/2.5 GHz): solid along I‑376 and in towns (Beaver, Aliquippa, Ambridge, Monaca, Rochester), with weaker continuity in sparsely populated townships; this gap is wider than the statewide average.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Town centers/corridors: generally competitive 5G downlink speeds suitable for HD streaming and hotspot use.
  • Rural edges: more frequent fallbacks to LTE and greater evening congestion than in metro PA counties.
• Fixed Wireless Access (FWA):
  • Adoption is growing where cable/fiber options are limited or costly; take‑rates appear higher than in dense metro counties but vary by township due to incumbent cable footprints.
• Tower/backhaul:
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than Allegheny County; additional sites or small‑cell infill near schools, industrial sites, and along I‑376 would disproportionately improve experience.
• Public/anchor connectivity:
  • Libraries, schools, and municipal buildings serve as important Wi‑Fi offload points in lower‑income tracts; device lending and ACP successor programs (if funded) materially affect smartphone‑only households.

Behavioral/usage implications

• Voice reliability and Wi‑Fi calling are key for residents in valleys; network choice often follows “works at home” rather than price alone.
• Higher share of prepaid and MVNO suggests churn sensitivity to promotions and localized coverage improvements.
• Smartphone‑only users rely heavily on unlimited/large data buckets, free video tiers, and public Wi‑Fi; they are more vulnerable to data deprioritization in peak hours than the state average.

12–24 month watchlist (what could change the picture)

• Continued C‑Band/2.5 GHz infill beyond the I‑376/river corridor could close the Beaver–PA 5G gap.
• BEAD‑driven fiber builds and cable upgrades would reduce smartphone‑only reliance, especially in rural townships.
• FWA expansion could stabilize or reduce prepaid churn by bundling home and mobile data.
• Any ACP‑replacement subsidy at the state/federal level would materially affect device/plan affordability in the county’s lower‑income tracts.

Method notes and confidence

• County population and age structure derived from recent Census/ACS trends; smartphone ownership benchmarks from recent Pew Research findings adjusted slightly downward for Beaver’s older/rural profile.
• Coverage and infrastructure observations reflect common Western PA patterns and carrier public rollouts since 2022; validate locally with FCC BDC maps, carrier coverage tools, and third‑party speed tests (Ookla/nPerf).
• Use ranges for planning; for program design, supplement with a short resident survey and drive‑tests in known weak‑signal valleys and rural townships.

Beaver County, PA social media snapshot (estimates for 2025)

Quick context

• Population: ~168,000; adults (18+): ~135,000. Older-than-average age mix (large 50+ segment).
• Internet access: ~85–90% of households; smartphone ownership among adults ~85–90%.
• Active social users: ~105,000–115,000 adults (≈78–85% of adults), with most checking daily.

Most-used platforms (percent of adults; county-level estimates modeled from Pew national usage, adjusted for Beaver County’s older age mix)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~40–45%
• TikTok: ~30–35%
• Pinterest: ~30–35% (strong female skew)
• Snapchat: ~25–30% (skews <30)
• LinkedIn: ~20–25% (skews 25–49, college-educated)
• X (Twitter): ~18–22% (male and news-heavy skew)
• Reddit: ~15–20% (male skew, younger)
• Nextdoor: ~10–15% (higher in suburban neighborhoods)

Age patterns (who uses what most)

• Teens (13–17): YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram lead; Facebook secondary (used for groups/teams).
• 18–29: Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok dominate; Facebook used but less central.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube strongest; Instagram rising; TikTok moderate; LinkedIn relevant for professionals.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube primary; Pinterest meaningful; Instagram moderate; TikTok lower but growing.
• 65+: Facebook first; YouTube second; Pinterest/Instagram modest; some Nextdoor usage.

Gender tendencies

• More female: Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight), TikTok (slight), Pinterest (strong).
• More male: YouTube (slight), Reddit (strong), X/Twitter (moderate). LinkedIn roughly balanced to slight male.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first usage: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups (township news, school/booster clubs, local sports, yard-sale/buy–sell–trade). Marketplace is a key commerce channel.
• Video is king: Short-form video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) drives discovery; how-to, local events, restaurant highlights perform well.
• Local trust signals: Posts from known local figures, schools, churches, and municipal pages get outsized engagement; “word-of-mouth” resharing is common.
• Messaging layers: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat (younger) are integral for coordination; Instagram DMs for younger adults.
• Timing: Peaks around early morning (commute/school), lunch, and 7–10pm. Weekend spikes for Marketplace/event posts; weather/school-closure spikes seasonally.
• Ad tactics that work: Click-to-call, directions, limited-time offers; geo-targeted video and event reminders; use of Groups and local creators for authenticity.

Notes on methodology and confidence

• County-specific platform data are rarely published; figures above are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. platform usage by age/gender, adjusted for Beaver County’s older age profile (ACS). Treat as directional ranges, not exact counts.
• For precise planning, validate with platform reach tools filtered to Beaver County (Meta Ads, Google Ads Reach Planner, Snapchat/TikTok Ads) and local media insights.