Beaver County

Here are key demographics for Beaver County, Utah. Figures are the most recent available from the U.S. Census Bureau (population: 2020 Decennial Census; other items: 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).

• Population size

  • Total: 7,072 (2020 Census)

• Age

  • Median age: ~34 years
  • Under 18: ~29–30%
  • 18 to 64: ~56–58%
  • 65 and over: ~13–15%

• Gender

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race and ethnicity

  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~77–80%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~15–17%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~3–4%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~1–2%
  • Asian (non-Hispanic): <1%
  • Black or African American (non-Hispanic): <1%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic): <1%

• Households and housing

  • Number of households: ~2,300
  • Average household size: ~3.0 persons
  • Family households: ~70–75% of all households
  • Average family size: ~3.5 persons
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–80%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (P.L. 94-171) and 2018–2022 ACS 5-year estimates (tables DP05, DP02, DP04).

Beaver County, UT — email usage (estimates)

• Population baseline: ~7,100 residents across ~2,600 sq mi (≈2.7–3.0 people per sq mi). Most live along the I‑15 corridor (Beaver, Minersville, Milford).
• Estimated email users: ~5,300–5,800 residents use email at least monthly (roughly 75–82% of the population), based on rural‑Utah/US adoption benchmarks.
• Age distribution (population): Under 18 ~27%; 18–34 ~22%; 35–64 ~36%; 65+ ~15%.
• Email adoption by age (share using email):
  • 14–24: ~90–95%
  • 25–44: ~95%
  • 45–64: ~85–90%
  • 65+: ~65–75% These rates imply most email users are 25–64, with growing but lower usage among seniors.
• Gender split among users: roughly even (≈50/50), mirroring county demographics.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet: roughly 75–85% with a home subscription; computer access ~85–90% (rural averages).
  • Mobile‑only internet households: ~10–15%, rising; many residents check email primarily on smartphones.
  • Connectivity is strongest in and near towns along I‑15; outside town centers, residents more often rely on fixed wireless or satellite, with variable speeds. Note: Figures are modeled from state and rural‑US patterns applied to local population; exact local counts may vary.

Mobile phone usage in Beaver County, Utah — summary focused on what differs from statewide patterns

At‑a‑glance user estimates

• Population baseline: roughly 7,300–7,800 residents.
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): 5,700–6,300 (driven by ~95% adult cellphone ownership plus high teen uptake).
• Smartphone users: 5,000–5,600 (lower than Utah’s urban counties; older age mix pulls this down).
• 5G‑capable devices: 2,800–3,600 (many subscribers still on LTE due to device age and patchy 5G off the I‑15 corridor). Notes: Ranges are modeled from typical rural-U.S. adoption, Utah’s above-average tech use, Beaver’s age structure, and recent national device trends.

Demographic and usage patterns

• Age skew: Older than Utah overall. Seniors raise the share of basic/LTE devices, slower upgrade cycles, and more voice/SMS reliance compared with the Wasatch Front.
• Household economics: Lower median incomes increase price sensitivity; higher use of prepaid, MVNOs, and smaller data buckets. The end of the ACP subsidy in 2024 likely pushed some households toward mobile‑only internet.
• Work profile: Agriculture, energy, and outdoor work increase demand for rugged devices, offline-capable apps, and wide‑area coverage rather than ultra‑high speeds.
• Mobile‑as‑primary internet: Noticeably higher share of households tethering or using phone-based broadband for home connectivity than statewide averages, especially outside Beaver and Milford city limits.
• Seasonal/throughput patterns: Traffic spikes align with I‑15 travel, trucking, and tourism (e.g., ski season at Eagle Point) rather than weekday commuter peaks typical of the Wasatch Front.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Coverage footprint: Strongest along I‑15 and in town centers (Beaver, Milford, Minersville). Coverage becomes spotty west toward the San Francisco Mountains and in the Tushar Range canyons (notably on roads to ski/recreation areas).
• 5G: Mid‑band 5G is present mainly on/near I‑15 and select town sites; mmWave is effectively absent. LTE remains the default in outlying areas.
• Backhaul: Fiber follows the interstate and into town hubs; many remote sites still depend on microwave backhaul. One of the region’s major radio sites is on Frisco Peak, supporting wide‑area microwave and broadcast.
• Carriers: National operators all serve the corridor; network investment is incremental and capacity‑driven (highway/town sectors first). FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is established on highways and in towns for public safety.
• Alternatives to mobile: In-town fiber/coax is available from regional providers, but outside core towns many locations rely on DSL, fixed wireless from WISPs, or mobile broadband—driving higher hotspot use than the state average.

How Beaver County differs from Utah statewide

• Adoption and devices: Slightly lower smartphone and 5G‑device penetration; longer device replacement cycles; higher LTE reliance.
• Primary connectivity: Higher prevalence of mobile‑only or mobile‑first home internet versus fiber‑first along the Wasatch Front.
• Performance variability: Greater swing in speeds and reliability across short distances due to terrain and fewer cell sites per square mile; Utah’s urban counties have denser sites and more consistent 5G mid‑band.
• Capacity drivers: Peaks tied to interstate traffic and tourism rather than daily office commutes; capacity upgrades happen first at highway sectors, not business districts.
• Coverage gaps: More pronounced dead zones in mountain corridors and west‑county basins; state-level maps dominated by urban coverage don’t reflect these canyon/valley shadows.
• Plan mix: Higher share of prepaid/MVNO and smaller data plans; Utah’s urban users skew more to postpaid unlimited with bundled services.

Implications and opportunities

• Network: Highest ROI for additional sites or sector upgrades is along I‑15 and recreation corridors; targeted small cells in Beaver/Milford cores can ease event/seasonal congestion.
• Services: Emphasize rugged devices, strong LTE fallback, Wi‑Fi calling, and generous hotspot allowances. Promote offline-capable apps for field users.
• Adoption: Senior-focused training and affordable upgrade programs can raise 5G device penetration; bilingual outreach helps in agricultural communities.
• Public safety: Fill known canyon gaps and ensure resilient backhaul (microwave diversity plus fiber where feasible) for winter and wildfire seasons.

Data confidence and next steps

• Validate local cell coverage and build plans via FCC mobile coverage maps, carrier maps, and the Utah Broadband Center. Check county permitting for recent tower upgrades and BEAD-funded projects to refine 5G timelines and fixed‑wireless alternatives.

Below is a concise, best‑available snapshot. Beaver County is small and there’s no official, county‑level panel data; figures are estimates inferred from Pew Research Center U.S. adoption (2023–2024), rural vs. urban splits, and Utah youth patterns. Treat ranges as directional.

Overall user stats

• Estimated total social media users: ~4,500–5,200 residents (out of roughly 7–8k), including teens.
• Adults (18+): ~75–80% use at least one platform; Teens (13–17): ~85–90%.
• Daily users: ~60–65% of residents 13+.

Age mix of users (share of social media users)

• 13–17: 12–15% (heavy Snapchat/TikTok).
• 18–29: 18–22%.
• 30–49: 35–38% (largest cohort).
• 50–64: 22–26%.
• 65+: 10–14% (primarily Facebook, YouTube).

Gender breakdown

• Overall: roughly even (female 51–53%, male 47–49%).
• Platform skews: Pinterest (female‑leaning), Facebook (slightly female), TikTok (slight female tilt), Reddit/X (male‑leaning), Instagram roughly balanced.

Most‑used platforms in Beaver County (estimated share of residents 13+ using monthly)

• YouTube: 70–80%.
• Facebook: 55–65% (dominant among 30+; Groups/Marketplace heavy).
• Instagram: 30–40% (rising 25–44).
• Snapchat: 25–35% overall; 80–90% of teens.
• TikTok: 25–35% overall; 70–80% of teens.
• Pinterest: 25–35% (especially women 25–54).
• WhatsApp: 8–12%.
• X (Twitter): 8–12%.
• Reddit: 8–12%.
• LinkedIn: 8–12%.
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited footprint in small towns).

Behavioral trends to know

• Community first: Facebook Groups and local Pages drive news, events, school and sports updates; Marketplace/classifieds are highly active.
• Video habits: YouTube for how‑to, outdoor/recreation, repairs, kid content (often on smart TVs). Short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) growing fast; cross‑posting Reels to FB + IG reaches mixed ages.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are primary; IG DMs among younger adults.
• Timing: Engagement peaks before work (6:30–8:30 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekends spike for community events.
• Content that performs: Local faces and places, high school sports, service updates (weather/road closures), giveaways, and value‑driven local offers. Albums for older audiences; short clips for younger.
• Platform nuances: Teens spend most time in Snapchat (streaks/Stories), TikTok (consumption), and YouTube (creators/long‑form). 35–54 segment is migrating to IG Reels; 55+ stays loyal to Facebook.
• Ads/ROI: Simple geo‑targeting works; FB/IG boosted posts drive store traffic and messages. Creator partnerships should favor trusted local voices over broad influencers.