Fulton County

Here are key, recent demographics for Fulton County, Pennsylvania (U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year unless noted).

Population size

• 14,556 (2020 Census)
• ~14.4k (2023 population estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~47–48 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50%

Race/ethnicity

• White (non-Hispanic): ~95%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Asian: <1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: <1%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~1–2%

Households

• Total households: ~5,700
• Average household size: ~2.5–2.6
• Family households: ~65–70% of households
• Married-couple households: ~55%
• Households with children under 18: ~25–27%
• Nonfamily households: ~30–35% (individuals living alone ~25–30%)

Fulton County, PA snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~14,500; area ~440 sq mi; density ≈33 people/sq mi (very rural, hilly terrain).
• Email users: ~10,000–11,000 residents (≈70–75% of total; ≈85–90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email use (share of users):
  • 13–24: 15–18% (adoption ≈95%+)
  • 25–44: 30–35% (≈95%)
  • 45–64: 30–35% (≈85–90%)
  • 65+: 15–20% (≈70–80%)
• Gender split: roughly 50/50; any gap likely under 2–3%.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband subscription around 70–75% of households; remaining homes rely on mobile, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Smartphone‑only internet users ~10–15%, making mobile email primary for many.
  • Fiber is expanding but remains limited outside borough centers (e.g., McConnellsburg); DSL and fixed wireless are common in outlying areas.
• Connectivity and density notes:
  • Service is fastest and most reliable near I‑70/US‑30 corridors and town centers; valleys and ridge areas have more dead zones and slower plans.
  • Low density and rugged topography raise last‑mile costs, contributing to patchy speeds and adoption gaps versus state averages.

Figures are synthesized from rural Pennsylvania patterns and national email adoption research; use for planning-level estimates.

Below is a pragmatic, planning-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Fulton County, Pennsylvania, with user estimates, demographic patterns, and digital infrastructure notes. Emphasis is on how Fulton County differs from the Pennsylvania statewide picture. Figures are rounded estimates based on recent ACS 5‑year patterns for rural PA counties, FCC mobile availability data, and carrier rollout trends; use them as order‑of‑magnitude planning inputs rather than point estimates.

User estimates

• Population baseline: ~14–15k residents; ~6k households; predominantly rural, dispersed settlement.
• Adult smartphone users: ~9k–10k (about 80–85% of adults), a few points below the statewide rate (PA typically ~90%+).
• Households relying on cellular or fixed wireless (FWA) as primary home internet: ~1.5k–2.2k (roughly 25–35% of households), notably higher than the state average.
• “Smartphone‑only device” households (smartphone but no laptop/desktop/tablet): ~700–900 households (about 12–15%), higher than the statewide share.
• 5G‑capable devices: ~65–75% of local smartphone base (statewide closer to ~80–85%), reflecting slower upgrade cycles and coverage constraints.
• Prepaid share: materially higher than statewide (cost sensitivity + coverage variability), though exact shares vary by carrier footprint.

Demographic breakdown (how usage differs from Pennsylvania overall)

• Age:
  • Fulton County skews older than the state average. Smartphone adoption among 65+ is materially lower (roughly mid‑50s to low‑60s percent), widening the county–state gap.
  • Younger adults (18–34) are near‑saturation (>95% with smartphones), similar to statewide.
• Income and education:
  • Lower‑income and lower‑education households are more likely to be smartphone‑only and to rely on cellular data/FWA instead of wireline broadband. This effect is stronger in Fulton than statewide due to limited wireline availability.
  • Price sensitivity drives higher prepaid uptake and slower device replacement cycles than the state average.
• Geography within the county:
  • Better coverage and 5G availability in and around McConnellsburg and along major corridors (US‑30, US‑522, I‑76 access points).
  • Valleys and hollows between ridgelines see more dead zones and fallback to 3G/legacy voice or weak LTE, pushing residents toward Wi‑Fi calling where available.

Digital infrastructure (conditions shaping usage)

• Coverage profile:
  • 4G LTE: broadly available along primary roads and population centers; patchy in mountainous terrain off‑corridor.
  • 5G: low‑band 5G is present along main corridors and population nodes; mid‑band (C‑band/2.5 GHz) is limited to a handful of macro sites; mmWave is effectively absent. Net result: 5G is more about coverage than capacity in Fulton, unlike many PA metro areas where mid‑band capacity is common.
• Tower siting and density:
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than the state average; terrain forces ridge‑top placements and leaves shadowed areas. New macro or small‑cell infill is slower than in suburban PA given challenging topography, backhaul, and economics.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • Scarcer fiber backhaul than statewide norms; this constrains both mobile capacity and the pace of 5G mid‑band upgrades.
  • State and federal broadband programs (e.g., BEAD via the PA Broadband Development Authority) are expected to add middle‑mile and last‑mile fiber through 2026–2028, which should improve mobile backhaul and enable more mid‑band 5G sectors.
• Alternatives and complements:
  • Fixed wireless access (FWA) from national carriers has grown quickly since 2023 and now serves a larger share of Fulton households than the statewide average.
  • Satellite internet (e.g., LEO) is used as a fallback in the most remote pockets; this is more common than statewide.

Key ways Fulton County trends differ from the state

• Higher reliance on cellular/FWA as primary home internet and higher “smartphone‑only device” households due to sparse wireline options.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption driven by an older population profile and cost sensitivity.
• Slower penetration of mid‑band 5G (capacity‑oriented) and fewer carrier‑redundant coverage options; performance varies sharply by micro‑geography.
• Longer device replacement cycles and higher prepaid plan use relative to statewide averages.
• Greater day‑to‑day variability in service quality (terrain‑driven dead zones), leading to heavier use of Wi‑Fi calling where wireline exists and more conservative app/video usage patterns away from corridors.

What to watch (2025–2027)

• BEAD‑funded fiber builds and new tower backhaul: should boost 5G mid‑band capacity, raise average speeds, and reduce congestion.
• Continued FWA growth: likely to remain above the state average until cable/fiber footprints expand.
• Targeted infill sites along secondary roads/valleys: incremental coverage gains that can meaningfully lift adoption among older and lower‑income residents.

Fulton County, PA social media snapshot (estimates, 2025)

Note on method: Fulton County is small and rural; there’s no official county-level survey. Figures below are reasonable estimates created by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. and rural usage rates to Fulton County’s age mix. Treat ranges as directional, not exact.

Headline user stats

• Population base: ≈12.5K residents age 13+ (of ~14.5K total).
• Monthly social media users: ~9K–10K (about 70–80% of 13+).
• Daily users: ~6K–7K (about 45–55% of 13+), with Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok driving most daily visits.

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+, estimated)

• YouTube: 78–85%
• Facebook: 65–75%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Pinterest: 30–40%
• Snapchat: 15–25%
• X (Twitter): 12–20%
• Reddit: 10–18%
• WhatsApp: 12–20%
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (coverage and adoption are spotty in rural areas)

Age-group snapshot (who uses what, estimated)

• Teens (13–17): YouTube 90%+, Snapchat 55–65%, TikTok 55–65%, Instagram 55–65%, Facebook ~25–35%.
• 18–29: YouTube 90%+, Instagram 70–80%, Snapchat 55–65%, TikTok 55–65%, Facebook 50–60%.
• 30–49: YouTube 85–90%, Facebook 70–80%, Instagram 45–55%, TikTok 35–45%, Pinterest ~35–45% (esp. women).
• 50–64: Facebook 70–75%, YouTube 70–80%, Instagram 25–35%, TikTok 20–30%.
• 65+: Facebook 60–65%, YouTube 55–65%, Instagram 10–20%, TikTok 8–15%.

Gender breakdown (adults, estimated tendencies)

• Women: Higher on Facebook (≈70–78%), Instagram (≈40–50%), Pinterest (≈45–55%), slightly higher TikTok (≈28–38%).
• Men: Higher on YouTube (≈80–88%), Reddit (≈15–25%), X (≈15–22%); Instagram and TikTok somewhat lower than women.

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the local hub: Heavy use of Groups (schools, churches, youth sports, fire/EMS updates), Events, and Marketplace. Messenger is the default DM for many adults.
• Video-first habits: Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) performs best; YouTube is strong for how‑to, hunting/fishing, farm/DIY, auto repair, and local sports replays—often watched on smart TVs in the evening.
• Local discovery: TikTok/Instagram used to find nearby eateries, salons, boutiques, tradespeople; creator-style, face-to-camera clips outperform static posts.
• Teens and young adults: Snapchat for daily chat/streaks; Instagram for peers and sports; TikTok for entertainment and trends. Facebook mainly for family/school notices.
• Older adults: Facebook remains primary for news, obits, community updates, school closings, and Marketplace; Pinterest for recipes, crafts, home projects.
• Timing: Peaks before work (6:30–8:30 a.m.), lunch (11:30 a.m.–1 p.m.), and evenings (7:30–10 p.m.); weekend late mornings are strong for buy/sell and events.
• Access patterns: More mobile-first usage; patchy broadband in rural pockets means short, lightweight videos and clear captions help.
• Posting vs. lurking: A minority produces content; most engage via likes, shares, and comments—especially on local issues, weather, and high school sports.
• What converts: Community tie-ins, limited-time offers, giveaways, and utility-focused posts (hours, directions, prices) outperform generic brand content.