Carbon County

Here are concise, recent (Census/ACS) demographics for Carbon County, Pennsylvania:

• Population: ~65,000 (2020 Census: 64,749)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~46–47 years
  • Under 18: ~19%
  • 18–64: ~59–60%
  • 65+: ~21–22%
• Sex:
  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%
• Race/ethnicity (rounded):
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~88–90%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~6–7%
  • Black or African American: ~1–2%
  • Asian: ~0.5–1%
  • Two or more races/Other: ~2–3%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~27,500–28,000
  • Average household size: ~2.3–2.4
  • Family households: ~65–67% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~47–49%
  • With children under 18: ~25–27%
  • One-person households: ~28–31%
  • Average family size: ~2.9

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

Email usage in Carbon County, PA (estimates)

• Users: ~45,000–50,000 residents actively use email. Based on ~65,000 population, ~82% adults, rural PA internet adoption ~85–90%, and email use among internet users ~90%+.
• Age mix of users: County skews older, so usage is weighted to 55+. Approximate split: 18–34: 18–22%; 35–54: 30–35%; 55–74: 32–36%; 75+: 8–12%.
• Gender: Roughly even (about 49% male / 51% female among residents); email adoption is similar by gender.
• Digital access trends: Most households have broadband, but subscription rates trail the PA average. Fastest service (cable/fiber) clusters in boroughs like Lehighton, Jim Thorpe, Palmerton, and Lansford; outlying/mountainous townships rely more on DSL or fixed‑wireless with patchier mobile coverage. 5G is present along main travel corridors (I‑476 and US‑209/PA‑248). Smartphone‑only internet access is rising, especially among lower‑income and younger adults.
• Local density/connectivity: About 160–180 people per square mile across ~380 sq mi. Terrain and dispersed housing contribute to speed and reliability variability.

Below is a concise, county-specific snapshot built from publicly reported patterns (Pew, FCC maps/speed-test aggregators) and local context. Figures are modeled estimates; use as planning ranges rather than exact counts.

County baseline

• Population: about 65–66k residents (Carbon County, PA), older and more rural than the Pennsylvania average.
• Terrain: ridge-and-valley topography (Lehigh Gorge, Broad/Nesquehoning mountains, Hickory Run State Park) creates radio shadowing and spotty indoor coverage away from towns and highways.
• Wireline backdrop: Blue Ridge Communications/PenTeleData cable is strong in boroughs and valleys; gaps remain in outlying townships, where some households rely on mobile or fixed wireless.

Estimated mobile phone users

• Unique mobile users (all ages): 45k–52k
  • Adults 18+: 41k–47k with a mobile phone, of which 38k–44k use smartphones.
  • Teens 13–17: 3k–4k with a mobile phone, mostly smartphones.
• Penetration relative to adults: roughly 83–87% smartphone adoption in Carbon vs ~88–90% at the state level.
• Mobile-only internet households: meaningfully higher share than the state average in outlying townships (where cable/DSL is limited).

Demographic patterns that differ from Pennsylvania overall

• Age: Older age structure reduces smartphone penetration and 5G device uptake versus the state average; flip phones and basic LTE devices are still visible among seniors.
• Income: Lower median income than PA overall correlates with:
  • Higher prepaid/MVNO usage (Cricket, Metro, Straight Talk/TracFone) and family plans optimized for cost.
  • Slower upgrade cycles; a larger installed base of LTE-only and budget Android devices.
• Platform mix: More Android-leaning than the statewide mix, which trends closer to parity or iOS-favoring in metro areas.
• Mobile-only reliance: Higher share of households using phones for primary home internet in Penn Forest, Kidder, Packer, and parts of Towamensing/Lehigh townships than in suburban/metro PA.

Network and infrastructure highlights

• Carrier share/experience (relative patterns):
  • Verizon: Generally the strongest geographic coverage, especially away from towns; tends to lead market share.
  • AT&T: Solid along highways/boroughs; can trail in the deeper valleys; FirstNet adds capacity for public-safety users.
  • T-Mobile: Broad low-band 5G footprint; mid-band capacity clusters in/near boroughs and along major corridors; coverage drops in forested hollows.
• 5G availability:
  • Low-band 5G is common in towns and along routes like US-209, PA-248, and the NE Extension (I-476), but mid-band 5G (C-band for Verizon/AT&T, n41 for T-Mobile) is patchy and largely town/corridor-focused.
  • Compared with statewide metro corridors (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Lehigh Valley), Carbon has less mid-band 5G depth and more reversion to LTE indoors or off-corridor.
• Capacity pain points and dead zones:
  • Notable weak/variable signal areas in Lehigh Gorge State Park, Hickory Run SP, and pockets of Nesquehoning/Broad Mountain and rural Penn Forest/Kidder.
  • Seasonal congestion spikes during festivals/tourism weekends in Jim Thorpe/Lehighton corridors; speeds drop more sharply than typical suburban PA.
• Backhaul and towers:
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than suburban counties; ridgeline siting creates coverage islands. In-building coverage can be inconsistent beyond borough centers; boosters are common for small businesses/homes off the valley floors.
• Fixed wireless as gap-filler:
  • T-Mobile Home Internet is available in and around larger boroughs (Lehighton, Palmerton, Jim Thorpe) and some adjacent townships; Verizon 5G Home appears only in select pockets.
  • These options matter more here than statewide averages because of cable/DSL gaps in outlying areas.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is good along main roads and towns; agencies still rely on VHF/UHF LMR in canyons/forested areas where cellular falls back or fades.

Usage behaviors and plan mix

• Higher prepaid share than PA average (think mid-20s to ~30% of lines vs high-teens/low-20s statewide), driven by income and retail presence (Walmart/Target pharmacies, convenience chains).
• Data use is more bursty: heavy weekend/seasonal surges tied to tourism; weekday commuting ties to Lehigh Valley introduce corridor-centric load.
• Hotspots remained in circulation post-pandemic among school districts for homework gaps; text-based communication and Facebook/Marketplace groups are relatively prominent in day-to-day use compared with app ecosystems that assume high-throughput 5G.

Key ways Carbon County differs from Pennsylvania overall

• Coverage: More terrain-driven dead zones and indoor signal challenges; Verizon reliance is stronger than in metro PA.
• 5G depth: Less mid-band 5G capacity and slower median speeds than big metros; more LTE fallbacks.
• Adoption: Slightly lower smartphone and 5G device penetration due to older age/income mix; longer device replacement cycles.
• Plans: Higher prepaid/MVNO and family value-plan share; greater mobile-only household reliance in outlying townships.
• Infrastructure dependency: Fixed wireless plays a larger role as a substitute where cable isn’t present; tower density and fiber backhaul are more constraining than in suburban counties.

Planning implications

• For outreach or service expansion, prioritize mid-band 5G infill and backhaul upgrades in boroughs and along US-209/PA-248/I-476, with ridge/hollow fill-ins near Penn Forest, Kidder, and the state parks.
• Expect stronger returns from Verizon-optimized solutions and signal-boosting hardware for businesses/residences outside town centers.
• Programs that offset device costs or support prepaid plans will reach more users here than in higher-income PA counties, especially after the ACP wind-down.

Below is a concise, locality‑tuned snapshot. Figures are estimates derived by applying current U.S. platform usage (e.g., Pew Research Center, 2023–2024) to Carbon County’s older-leaning age/gender mix (Census/ACS). Treat as directional, not census-precise.

Snapshot

• Population: ~65K; Adults (18+): ~53K
• Social media penetration (18+): 75–80% → ~40–43K adult users
• Skew: Older than U.S. average; Facebook and YouTube especially strong

Age mix of social users (est.)

• 13–17: 5–6% of users
• 18–34: 22–25%
• 35–54: 35–38% (largest block)
• 55–64: 18–20%
• 65+: 18–22%

Gender breakdown (users, est.)

• Female: 52–54%
• Male: 46–48%
• Notes: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men on YouTube, Reddit, X

Most-used platforms (adults, estimated reach)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 60–65%
• Instagram: 30–35%
• TikTok: 25–30% (higher among <35)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (female-skewed)
• Snapchat: 20–25% (teens/younger adults)
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (lower given occupations/age)
• Reddit: 12–15%
• Nextdoor: 8–12% (FB Groups fill much of the “neighbors” niche)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups for township updates, school sports, lost/found pets, yard sales/Marketplace, weather closures, local contractors and home services.
• Events and tourism content travel well: Jim Thorpe festivals, rail/river/outdoor recreation, leaf‑peeping, and trail content perform strongly on Facebook and Instagram; short vertical video boosts reach.
• Short‑form video rising: Instagram Reels and TikTok adoption growing among 18–44; local businesses (food, salons, outfitters, real estate) see outsized engagement with authentic, face‑forward clips.
• YouTube is universal utility: how‑to, home improvement, hunting/fishing/outdoors, auto/ATV, and high school sports highlights; men 18–49 over-index.
• Messaging > posting for many: FB Messenger dominates; group chats for teams, church, and school parents are common; WhatsApp remains niche.
• Marketplace is a staple: brisk activity for vehicles, equipment, furniture, seasonal gear; strong response to “free/cheap,” pickup-friendly listings.
• Local news trust is hyper‑local: residents prioritize posts from familiar admins, community pages, and first responders; breaking weather and road incidents spike engagement.
• Timing: Evenings (7–10 pm) and weekend mornings see peaks; storm days/closures create surges.

Notes on method

• Percentages are county-level estimates based on national platform penetration by age/gender adjusted to Carbon County’s older demographic profile; exact local platform counts are not publicly reported.