Carbon County

Here are key demographics for Carbon County, Utah. Figures are the latest available from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census for total population; ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates for breakdowns). Values rounded for clarity.

• Population size: 20,412 (2020 Census)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~38
  • Under 18: ~24%
  • 65 and over: ~17–18%
• Gender:
  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive where noted):
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~80–83%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~12–15%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–4%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
  • Black, non-Hispanic: ~0.5–1%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5–1%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: <0.5%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~7,600–7,900
  • Average household size: ~2.6
  • Family households: ~60–65% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~45–50% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~28–32%
  • Owner-occupied housing: ~70%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (P.L. 94-171) and American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Summary for Carbon County, Utah (estimates)

• Email users: About 13–15k residents use email regularly. Method: apply Utah/rural-US internet adoption and email-use rates to the ~20.5k population (≈86% age 13+, 80–85% online, 90–95% of internet users use email).

• Age pattern (share with email):

  • 13–17: 85–90% (school-driven accounts)
  • 18–34: 95–98%
  • 35–54: 90–95%
  • 55–64: 85–90%
  • 65+: 75–85%

• Gender split: Near parity (roughly 49–51% each). No meaningful difference in email use by gender.

• Digital access trends:

  • Home broadband adoption ≈80–85% of households; 15–20% are smartphone‑only.
  • Strongest connectivity in Price/Helper corridor; more reliance on fixed wireless/satellite in outlying areas; cost and distance from backbones remain barriers.
  • Public access via libraries, schools, and campus facilities in Price supports residents without home broadband.

• Local density/connectivity facts:

  • Population ≈20.5k spread over 1,485 sq mi (14 people/sq mi), which increases last‑mile costs and slows rural upgrades.
  • Ongoing state/federal rural-broadband programs are expanding fiber and fixed‑wireless coverage.

Notes: Figures are modeled from U.S. Census/ACS population, Pew/NTIA usage patterns, and rural‑Utah benchmarks applied to Carbon County.

Below is a county-level snapshot built from public census demographics, rural wireless adoption research, carrier coverage patterns in central-eastern Utah, and statewide benchmarks. Figures are estimates intended to be directionally accurate; use them as planning ranges.

County context

• Population: roughly 20–21k residents, centered on Price/Helper/Wellington, with very low density outside town centers and significant canyon/mountain terrain.
• Economy: energy/extractive industries, service/retail, education (USU Eastern). Incomes and educational attainment are below Utah averages; median age is several years higher than the state.

User estimates (Carbon County)

• Adult mobile users: 14,500–16,500 individuals
  • Basis: ~15–16k adults; overall mobile phone ownership among adults ~90–94% (smartphone 83–88%, feature phone 5–8%). Teen adoption is high; adding teens brings total unique users into the mid‑teens (thousands).
• Smartphone vs. feature phone:
  • Smartphones: 83–88% of adults (Utah statewide: ~90–92%).
  • Feature/flip phones: 6–10% of adults, notably higher among 65+ and some shift‑work occupations.
• Platform mix (handset OS):
  • Android: 58–65% share (higher than Utah’s urban corridors).
  • iOS: 35–42% (Utah statewide tends to skew more iOS due to income/education effects).
• Plan types:
  • Prepaid/value plans: 28–35% of lines (Utah statewide: ~18–25%).
  • Postpaid family plans remain common in town centers; single‑line prepaid more prevalent in outlying areas.
• Internet access mode:
  • Mobile‑only households: 18–24% (Utah statewide: ~12–15%). Fixed‑wire alternatives are strong in town but thin in exurban pockets, pushing mobile reliance.
• 5G device penetration: modestly lower than state averages; upgrade cycles lag 6–12 months behind the Wasatch Front.

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age:
  • 18–34: Near‑universal smartphone ownership; heavy social/video use; greater T‑Mobile adoption in town areas with strong 5G.
  • 35–64: High ownership; budget Androids and family postpaid dominate; work‑related reliance in trades/energy sectors.
  • 65+: Smartphone ownership ~70% range (below Utah’s rate); larger share of flip phones and simplified devices; lower app diversity but high SMS/voice dependence.
• Income/education:
  • Lower-income households show higher prepaid and mobile‑only internet rates; tighter data caps and slower upgrade cycles influence usage (more Wi‑Fi offload where available).
• Ethnicity/language:
  • Hispanic households (notably in Price/Wellington) show above‑average mobile‑only reliance and use of messaging/video calling apps; bilingual plans and international features see demand.
• Workforce patterns:
  • Field work, driving, and canyon transit increase emphasis on coverage/reliability, battery life, PTT/LMR interop, and vehicle boosters.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage geography:
  • Strongest along US‑6 (Helper–Price–Wellington) and town centers. Significant dead/weak zones in Price Canyon/Soldier Summit, Scofield/skyline areas, Nine Mile Canyon, Range Creek, and recreation corridors.
• Carriers (practical experience in rural UT):
  • Verizon: Broadest rural footprint; dependable LTE and low‑band 5G along highways; capacity can be limited at peaks; C‑band 5G is sparse/urban‑focused.
  • AT&T: Solid in towns/US‑6; FirstNet supports public safety; rural fill‑in is decent but more variable west/north of Price.
  • T‑Mobile: Very good in Price/Helper/Wellington with low‑band 5G; mid‑band 5G concentrated in town; weaker in canyons and some outlying valleys.
• Fixed access and backhaul:
  • Emery Telcom provides fiber/coax in town (Price, Helper, Wellington, East Carbon) and key institutions; this backhaul underpins many macro sites.
  • Outside town, some sites depend on microwave backhaul; weather/terrain can affect stability.
  • State/UDOT fiber along major corridors improves intercity backhaul.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA):
  • T‑Mobile Home Internet widely marketed in town and some fringes; Verizon 5G Home is more limited. FWA is an important stopgap where fiber/cable drops off.
• Public/anchor connectivity:
  • Libraries, schools, USU Eastern offer robust Wi‑Fi and device lending; meaningful for homeworkers and mobile‑only households.
• Seasonal/through‑traffic:
  • US‑6 carries tourism and freight; transient devices cause daytime/seasonal congestion spikes at corridor cell sectors.

How Carbon County differs from Utah statewide

• Adoption and devices:
  • Slightly lower smartphone penetration, older average devices, and slower 5G upgrade cycles than the Wasatch Front.
  • Higher Android and prepaid shares driven by income mix and rural coverage pragmatics.
• Access patterns:
  • Higher proportion of mobile‑only households and FWA usage because fiber/coax fades quickly outside town grids; statewide, fiber and cable penetration is much higher in metro areas.
• Coverage reality:
  • More pronounced coverage gaps and canyon fade compared with Utah’s urban counties; reliability often trumps peak speed in device/plan choices.
• Network performance:
  • 5G mid‑band density is lower and more localized (town cores), so average user speeds and capacity gains trail state averages that benefit from dense C‑band/n41 builds in metro areas.

Implications for planners and providers

• Prioritize new or upgraded sites along Price Canyon (US‑6), Scofield access routes, and Nine Mile Canyon recreation corridors.
• Expand mid‑band 5G and fiber backhaul in Price/Helper/Wellington to raise capacity; pair with FWA where last‑mile fiber is uneconomical.
• Support affordability (ACP successors, prepaid-friendly features) and digital literacy for older adults; maintain Spanish‑language outreach.
• Encourage in‑vehicle signal solutions for canyon commuters and field workers.

Below is a practical, county‑level snapshot built from Carbon County demographics (ACS/Census), plus Utah/rural U.S. social‑media patterns from recent Pew and platform-reported trends. Exact county-level platform stats aren’t published; figures are best-available estimates for residents age 13+.

Quick snapshot

• Population: ~20.5–21k (Price/Helper/Wellington area). Internet access is high but with rural pockets; social-media penetration is strong.
• Estimated social-media users (13+): 12.5k–14.5k (roughly 72–80% of residents 13+).

Age profile (estimated share using at least one platform)

• 13–17: 90–95% (heavy daily use; YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok dominate)
• 18–29: 88–92% (Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; Facebook for groups/Marketplace)
• 30–49: 80–86% (Facebook, YouTube; Instagram growing)
• 50–64: 68–76% (Facebook, YouTube; Pinterest among women)
• 65+: 48–58% (Facebook and YouTube; some Pinterest)

Gender breakdown (overall user base)

• Roughly mirrors the population: ~50–52% female, ~48–50% male.
• Skews by platform: women over-index on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men on YouTube/Reddit/X.

Most-used platforms in Carbon County (estimated % of residents 13+ who use monthly)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 60–70% (Marketplace and local groups are core)
• Instagram: 35–45% (higher under 35)
• TikTok: 25–35% (very high under 30; lower 45+)
• Snapchat: 25–35% (concentrated among teens/20s)
• Pinterest: 18–25% (primarily women 25–54)
• X (Twitter): 12–20% (news/sports niche)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (lower in rural, blue‑collar mix)
• Reddit: 10–15% (younger male skew, hobby/tech/outdoors)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community backbone: Buy/Sell/Trade, school and youth sports, local events, churches, public safety, and county/city agency updates. Comments matter; local names/faces build trust.
• Marketplace is a daily habit: strong response to deals, used goods, vehicles, tools, powersports, and rentals.
• Short-form video wins younger audiences: TikTok/Snapchat for quick local highlights (sports clips, behind‑the‑scenes at local businesses, outdoor/lifestyle).
• YouTube is “how‑to” central: auto repair, home improvement, hunting/fishing, off‑road/UTV, and appliance/DIY. Many watch YouTube on TV sets in the evening.
• Instagram for visuals and pride-of-place: food specials, new inventory, outdoor scenery, and high‑school activities perform well; Reels extend reach.
• Timing: noticeable peaks before work/school (6–8am), lunch (12–1pm), and evenings (7–10pm). Weekends see strong engagement for events and Marketplace.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are primary; WhatsApp is relatively niche locally.
• Content cues: practical value (discounts, clear calls to visit), local faces/staff, youth sports tie‑ins, and outdoors/seasonal hooks outperform generic brand content.
• Geo focus: Target Price/Helper/Wellington and a 15–25‑mile radius. Interest layers that work: auto/DIY, powersports, hunting/fishing, family activities, and local schools.

Method note

• Percentages are estimates derived from Pew Research (national age-by-platform usage), Utah’s age mix, rural-county effects (Facebook/YouTube over-index; LinkedIn/X under-index), and Carbon County population structure. Use platform ad tools (location = Carbon County or Price/Helper/Wellington) to refine with real-time audience sizes.