Potter County

Potter County, Pennsylvania — key demographics

Population size and trend

• 16,396 (2020 Decennial Census)
• Change since 2010: −6.1% (from 17,457)

Age

• Median age: ~49.8 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~19%
• 18 to 64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~23%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~94–95%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~1.5–2%
• Black/African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.4–0.5%
• Asian: ~0.3–0.4%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~7,000
• Average household size: ~2.28
• Family households: ~65% of households
• One-person households: ~29–31%
• Households with children under 18: ~23–25%

Insights: Small, aging population with modest decline over the last decade; households are relatively small, predominantly family-based, and the county’s population is overwhelmingly non-Hispanic White.

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

Potter County, PA overview

• Population and density: 16,200 residents across ~1,080 sq mi (15 people/sq mi), among the most sparsely populated counties in Pennsylvania.
• Estimated email users: ~11,500 residents use email at least monthly (≈71% of all residents; ~85% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users: 13–17: 6%; 18–29: 14%; 30–49: 28%; 50–64: 28%; 65+: 24%. Use is near-universal in prime working ages and notably lower, but still widespread, among seniors.
• Gender split: ≈50% female / 50% male among email users.
• Digital access and trends: About 78–80% of households have a broadband subscription; roughly 1 in 5 lacks fixed broadband and may rely on mobile-only, satellite, or public access. Fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts are improving speeds and availability, yet gaps persist in remote townships due to very low density and rugged terrain. County internet adoption trails state averages by several points; older residents are less likely to be daily email users than middle‑aged adults.
• Connectivity context: Large state forest areas and long last‑mile runs raise deployment costs; many addresses remain “underserved” on recent FCC maps despite upgrades along US Route 6 and in/near Coudersport.

Estimates combine ACS rural-PA connectivity rates with national email-use by age.

Mobile phone usage in Potter County, Pennsylvania — 2023 profile and how it differs from statewide patterns

Overall adoption and user estimates

• Population/households: ~16,400 residents and ~7,000 households (ACS 2019–2023).
• Smartphone access: ~82% of households report having a smartphone (vs ~90% statewide).
• Cellular data plan in the household: ~66% (vs ~78% statewide).
• Households with no internet subscription: ~18–19% (vs ~10% statewide), indicating a higher share of residents who either remain offline or rely solely on cellular service.
• Estimated adult smartphone users: ~11,000–12,000 residents, assuming ~84–86% adult adoption among roughly 13,000 adults.

Demographic patterns behind the gap

• Age: The adoption gap versus Pennsylvania is widest among older residents. Households headed by adults 65+ in Potter County are markedly less likely to have smartphones or any internet subscription than the state average, while 18–34 adoption is high but still a few points lower than statewide.
• Income: Smartphone and cellular-plan take-up is notably lower in under-$25k households than the state average; the gap narrows considerably above $75k, where adoption converges toward statewide rates.
• Education: Households with a high school diploma or less are significantly less likely to have smartphones and internet subscriptions than state peers, while bachelor’s+ households are close to parity with Pennsylvania overall.
• Rurality: Low population density and long distances to service centers correlate with a higher share of mobile-reliant households and a larger offline population than the state average.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage mix: 4G LTE is present in population centers and along main corridors, but service quality drops in valleys and heavily forested terrain. 5G is available in select towns and along primary routes, predominantly low-band, with limited mid-band depth compared to Pennsylvania’s metro corridors.
• Backhaul and capacity: Fewer macro sites per square mile than the state average and a sparser fiber footprint constrain capacity; where fiber backhaul is absent, sites show lower peak and median speeds and greater congestion during evening hours.
• Technology reliance: A meaningfully higher share of households report satellite internet availability and use than the statewide average; this coexists with above-average reliance on cellular data for home connectivity when fixed broadband is unavailable or unaffordable.
• Emergency coverage: Terrain-induced shadowing produces more dead zones than typical in Pennsylvania, driving greater dependence on Wi‑Fi calling in homes without reliable indoor signal.

What’s different from Pennsylvania overall

• Lower adoption: Potter County trails the state by roughly 8–10 percentage points in household smartphone access and by ~10–12 points in cellular data plan subscriptions.
• Higher offline rate: Nearly one in five households report no internet subscription, almost double the statewide share.
• Greater mobile reliance: A larger portion of connected households lean on cellular data as their primary or only home internet, reflecting gaps in wireline broadband availability and affordability.
• Uneven 5G: 5G reach is patchier and more low-band focused, resulting in smaller speed gains than the mid-band 5G common in Pennsylvania’s urban and suburban counties.
• Wider demographic disparities: Age, income, and education-driven divides in mobile access are more pronounced than statewide, with seniors and lower-income households lagging most.

Implications

• Mobile networks in Potter County shoulder a disproportionate share of basic connectivity compared with the rest of Pennsylvania, but with lower performance headroom due to site density, terrain, and limited mid-band 5G.
• Targeted build-outs that pair new or upgraded macro/small cells with fiber backhaul, plus affordability support for lower-income and senior households, would close the largest gaps and bring county metrics closer to state norms.

Potter County, PA social media snapshot (2025)

Population baseline

• Residents: ~16.2k; adults 18+: ~13.1k
• Internet/social access context: rural county with high Facebook/YouTube use and slower uptake of newer networks among older adults

How many use it

• Any major platform (incl. YouTube): 80% of adults (10.5k people)
• Social networking (Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat/LinkedIn/X; excludes YouTube): 71% of adults (9.3k)

Age profile of social networking users (adults)

• 18–29: ~88% use; ~1.8k users locally
• 30–49: ~82% use; ~2.9k users
• 50–64: ~73% use; ~2.6k users
• 65+: ~50% use; ~1.9k users
• Teens 13–17: ~90% use; ~0.77k users

Gender breakdown

• Population: roughly 51% male, 49% female
• Among social media users: slight female skew (~52% female, 48% male), driven by Facebook and Pinterest
• Platform skews: Facebook and Pinterest skew female; YouTube, X/Twitter, Reddit skew male; Instagram and TikTok near-balanced but slightly female

Most-used platforms among Potter County adults (share of adults who use each)

• YouTube: ~78%
• Facebook: ~65%
• Instagram: ~38%
• Pinterest: ~30%
• TikTok: ~28%
• Snapchat: ~22%
• WhatsApp: ~18%
• LinkedIn: ~18%
• X/Twitter: ~16%
• Reddit: ~16% Notes: Facebook remains the daily driver for older and community-focused users; YouTube is the default for how‑to and entertainment. Instagram/TikTok usage concentrates in under‑40s; Snapchat is strongest with teens and 18–24s. LinkedIn is modest given the county’s industry mix.

Behavioral trends

• Hyperlocal groups power usage: Facebook Groups for school updates, road/weather conditions, hunting/fishing clubs, yard sales, lost/found pets, volunteer fire/EMS, and community events dominate engagement.
• Marketplace matters: strong use for farm/rural equipment, outdoor gear, vehicles, and household items; high responsiveness to photo‑heavy listings.
• Local news discovery: county/school/borough pages and local outlets’ posts on Facebook drive most news interactions; shares spike around weather, closures, and public safety.
• Video as utility: YouTube widely used for DIY, auto/small‑engine repair, home improvement, and outdoor skills; watch time skews evenings and weekends.
• Short‑form growth: TikTok and Instagram Reels adoption rising among under‑40s for outdoors, stargazing/Cherry Springs content, tourism, and small‑business promotion.
• Messaging stack: Facebook Messenger for family/community coordination; Snapchat for teens/young adults; WhatsApp mainly for specific work/family circles.
• Seasonality: engagement lifts around hunting seasons, winter storms, summer tourism, and school-year milestones; event pages perform well during fair/festival periods.
• Ad responsiveness: Facebook and Instagram ads with local imagery and clear calls-to-action perform best; evening posting (7–10 p.m.) and weekend windows see higher interaction.

Method note: Figures are 2025 estimates modeled from U.S. Census/ACS age structure for Potter County and Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. platform adoption data with rural/age adjustments. Actual usage can vary by neighborhood and over time.