Juab County

Juab County, Utah — key demographics

Population

• Total population: 11,786 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~31.5 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Age distribution: Under 18: 33.7%; 18–24: 8.5%; 25–44: 27.0%; 45–64: 18.9%; 65+: 11.9% (ACS 2018–2022)

Gender

• Male: 50.8%
• Female: 49.2% (ACS 2018–2022)

Race and ethnicity (Hispanic can be of any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: 86.1%
• Hispanic/Latino: 9.5%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 2.3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: 0.7%
• Black, non-Hispanic: 0.3%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: 0.3%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: 0.2%
• Other, non-Hispanic: 0.6% (2020 Census/ACS 2018–2022)

Households and housing

• Households: ~3,600
• Average household size: ~3.25
• Family households: ~77% of households; married-couple families: ~66%
• Households with children under 18: ~44%
• Owner-occupied: ~83%; renter-occupied: ~17% (ACS 2018–2022)

Insights

• Young population structure (median age ~31, one-third under 18)
• Large households and high share of family/married-couple households
• Predominantly White non-Hispanic with a meaningful Hispanic/Latino minority

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

• Estimated email users: ≈8,900 residents in Juab County (about 90% of those age 13+; ~71% of total population ≈12.6K).
• Age breakdown of email users (modeled from county age mix and U.S./Utah adoption rates):
  • 13–17: ~860 users (≈85% adoption)
  • 18–34: ~2,900 users (≈96%)
  • 35–54: ~2,840 users (≈94%)
  • 55+: ~2,270 users (≈82%)
• Gender split among email users: 50% male (4.4K) and 50% female (4.5K), near parity; women hold a slight edge in the 55+ cohort.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband subscription: ~86% of households, with higher availability and speeds in Nephi/Mona along the I‑15 corridor and more reliance on fixed wireless/satellite in outlying areas.
  • Smartphone ownership among adults: ~89%, driving mobile-first email access and higher evening open rates.
  • Continued improvements from state/federal rural broadband investments are narrowing gaps, particularly for last‑mile fiber.
• Local density/connectivity facts: Juab spans roughly 3,400 square miles with ~3.7 residents per square mile; population and infrastructure are concentrated near I‑15, while the western desert remains very sparsely connected.

Notes: Figures are 2024 estimates derived from ACS/Pew adoption rates applied to Juab’s population structure.

Mobile phone usage in Juab County, Utah — 2024 snapshot with county-versus-state contrasts

Headline takeaways

• High smartphone access but a notch below Utah’s average; heavier reliance on cellular service as the primary home internet, reflecting rural infrastructure gaps.
• Strong coverage and 5G along the I‑15 corridor (Mona–Nephi) contrasts with persistent dead zones and slowdowns in the western desert and foothill canyons.
• Older residents and lower-income households in Juab are more likely than the state average to use prepaid or limited-data plans and to experience coverage constraints.

User estimates and ownership

• Population and households (2023): ~12,900 residents; ~4,100 households.
• Households with a smartphone (ACS S2801, 2019–2023 5‑year): ~91% in Juab vs ~94% statewide. Roughly 3,700–3,800 Juab households have at least one smartphone.
• Households with a cellular data plan (ACS S2801): ~79% in Juab vs ~85% statewide.
• Cellular-only internet households (no wired broadband, rely on mobile hotspot or phone tethering): ~16% in Juab vs ~11% statewide.
• Estimated individual mobile users (modeled from ACS age mix and Pew smartphone adoption): ~9,000–9,500 residents use a mobile phone, including ~7,500–8,000 adult smartphone users and ~900–1,100 teen users.

Demographic breakdown (key differences vs Utah)

• Age-related adoption (modeled):
  • 18–34: ~96–98% smartphone adoption in Juab (similar to Utah).
  • 35–64: ~90–93% in Juab (slightly below Utah by 1–3 points).
  • 65+: ~72–76% in Juab vs ~80% in Utah overall; seniors in Juab are more likely to use basic phones or share devices.
• Plan types:
  • Prepaid/limited-data plans: ~22–25% of Juab lines vs ~16–18% statewide, reflecting more price-sensitive and coverage-dependent usage.
  • Unlimited data: lower penetration than Utah overall; data throttling reported more often during peak times in Juab’s high-traffic nodes.
• Household composition and use:
  • Larger family households common (in line with Utah norms), but fewer multi-line unlimited family plans than the state average due to mixed coverage and cost considerations.
  • Work-related mobility: above-average share of outdoor, agriculture, construction, and energy workers leads to heavier voice/SMS and PTT-style usage in fringe-coverage zones compared with the metro-centric app/data usage profile statewide.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern:
  • I‑15 corridor (Mona–Nephi): all three national carriers provide strong 4G LTE and broad low-band 5G; T‑Mobile mid-band 5G is present in and around Nephi and Mona with typical median speeds 150–300 Mbps; AT&T and Verizon low-band 5G provide wide-area coverage with LTE-like speeds where mid-band is absent.
  • Western desert and BLM lands (e.g., Little Sahara Recreation Area, approaches toward Fish Springs NWR and the Dugway boundary): extensive partial/no‑service areas and band‑12/13-only LTE in pockets; voice and SMS are generally more reliable than data; data speeds often 1–10 Mbps or unavailable.
  • Canyon and foothill fringes east and west of Nephi/Levan: variable signal, frequent handoffs, and capacity constraints during weather events.
• Capacity and congestion:
  • Peak congestion spikes occur along I‑15 (commute peaks and weekend travel) and during large events at Little Sahara; users experience throttling on deprioritized plans more frequently than state average during these periods.
• Emergency and public safety:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) covers the I‑15 corridor and communities; off‑highway coverage remains limited, necessitating boosters or satellite messengers for reliable backcountry contact.
• Home and small-business alternatives:
  • Fixed wireless access (5G/LTE home internet) is available in the Mona–Nephi axis and a few outlying areas; adoption is higher than Utah average among households lacking cable/fiber.
  • Wireline broadband is concentrated in town centers; many rural premises fall back to mobile hotspotting, driving the higher cellular-only household rate.

Trends distinct from Utah’s statewide profile

• Slightly lower smartphone and cellular-data adoption at the household level, driven by rural geography and older age mix.
• Meaningfully higher share of cellular-only households for home internet, reflecting gaps in wired coverage.
• Higher prevalence of prepaid or deprioritized plans and feature-phone use among seniors.
• Larger, persistent coverage holes away from the I‑15 corridor; service quality diverges more sharply by location than in most Utah counties.
• Event- and corridor-driven congestion has a bigger impact on user experience than in urban Wasatch Front counties, with more pronounced slowdowns for budget plans.

Data sources and basis

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5‑year, Table S2801 (Computer and Internet Use) for county and state smartphone and cellular plan household metrics.
• FCC mobile coverage maps (2024) and carrier-disclosed 5G footprints for corridor vs backcountry availability.
• Modeled user counts and age-breakout adoption aligned with ACS age distribution and Pew Research Center smartphone adoption benchmarks (2023).

Social media usage in Juab County, UT (2025 snapshot)

Overall adoption

• Adults using at least one social platform: 70–80%
• Daily social media users: 60–70%

Most-used platforms (share of adults; modeled from 2024 Pew U.S. adoption, adjusted for a younger Utah age mix and rural patterns)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 40–50%
• Snapchat: 30–40% (notably higher among under-30s)
• TikTok: 30–35%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• Reddit: 15–20%
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (concentrated in commuters/professionals)
• Nextdoor: <10%

Age profile (platform reach by age band; adults unless noted)

• Teens 13–17: YouTube 95%+, Instagram 70–75%, Snapchat 70–80%, TikTok 65–70%, Facebook <30%
• 18–29: YouTube 95%+, Instagram 75–80%, Snapchat 60–70%, TikTok 55–65%, Facebook 45–55%
• 30–49: YouTube 85–90%, Facebook 70–75%, Instagram 50–55%, TikTok 30–40%, Snapchat 25–35%
• 50–64: Facebook 70–75%, YouTube 75–80%, Instagram 30–35%, TikTok 15–25%
• 65+: Facebook 50–60%, YouTube 55–65%, Instagram 15–20%

Gender breakdown (direction and magnitude typical for rural Utah)

• Women: higher on Facebook (+5–10 points), Instagram (+3–6), Pinterest (~45–55% vs ~15–25% of men), slightly higher on TikTok
• Men: higher on YouTube (+3–5), Reddit (+8–12), and X/Twitter (+3–6)

Behavioral trends

• Community-centric Facebook: Groups and Pages drive information flow for school sports, fairs, 4‑H, church/community events; Facebook Marketplace is a top daily driver.
• Private, ephemeral communication among youth: Snapchat and Instagram DMs/Stories dominate over public posting; cross-posting IG Stories to Facebook Stories is common.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for DIY, ranching/outdoors, off-road/automotive, hunting, home projects; TikTok/Reels for short-form entertainment and local business discovery.
• News pathways: Local news primarily via Facebook reshares and YouTube clips; X/Twitter is niche (educators, journalists, sports fans).
• Professional networking: Low LinkedIn penetration; coordination often happens in Facebook Groups and via direct messages.
• Usage patterns: Peak engagement weekday evenings (7–10 pm) and weekend mornings; mobile-first (>90% of sessions); short-form video outperforms static posts; carousels outperform single-image on Instagram.

Method note

• Figures are modeled estimates for Juab County derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption, teen/age-specific patterns, and rural vs. urban usage studies, adjusted for Utah’s younger age structure. Percentages refer to adults unless otherwise noted.