Rich County

Rich County, Utah — key demographics

Population

• 2,735 residents (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~39 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~28%
• 18–64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; Hispanic can be of any race)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~93%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~5%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~1–2%
• Other single-race groups (Black, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander): each <1%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~980
• Average household size: ~2.9
• Family households: ~74% of households; married-couple families: ~65%
• Households with children under 18: ~33%
• Tenure: ~82% owner-occupied, ~18% renter-occupied
• Average family size: ~3.3

Insights

• Very small, predominantly non-Hispanic White county with family-oriented, owner-occupied households and a median age around 39.

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

• Baseline: Rich County, UT had 2,735 residents in 2020 and is among Utah’s least-dense counties (≈2–3 people per square mile), with population concentrated in Garden City, Randolph, Laketown, and Woodruff.
• Estimated email users: 2,200–2,400 residents (≈80–88% of people age 12+). Gender split among users is essentially even (≈50% female, 50% male).
• Age distribution of email use (adoption rates):
  • Teens (12–17): 75–80%
  • 18–34: 93–97%
  • 35–64: 88–92%
  • 65+: 65–75% These rates imply the majority of email users are adults 35–64, with strong usage among 18–34 and a smaller—but growing—share 65+.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet subscription is typical of rural Utah at roughly 80–85%, with higher take-up in town centers and lower in remote ranching areas.
  • Fixed broadband is available in population centers; fixed wireless and satellite are common in outlying areas. Mobile data coverage is reliable along primary corridors (e.g., US‑89/Bear Lake area) with dead zones in canyons and sparsely settled valleys.
  • Seasonal influx around Bear Lake increases network load, but permanent-resident connectivity remains the binding constraint.

Figures are derived from the 2020 Census baseline and rural Utah internet/email adoption benchmarks (ACS/Pew/FCC).

Mobile phone usage in Rich County, Utah — 2024 snapshot

Context

• Population baseline: 2,735 residents (2020 Census). The county is small, highly rural, and tourism-driven around Bear Lake, with most year‑round population in Garden City, Laketown, Randolph, and Woodruff. Utah overall is urbanized along the Wasatch Front, giving Rich County a distinctly different mobile profile.

User estimates

• Active mobile phone users: approximately 2,200–2,500 residents use a mobile phone regularly, reflecting high adoption among adults and teens but a modest rural/older‑age discount versus Utah’s urban counties.
• Smartphone users: roughly 1,900–2,300 residents use smartphones as their primary handset.
• Cellular‑only internet households: about 12–18% of occupied households rely primarily on a smartphone or cellular hotspot for home internet, above the statewide share typical of Utah’s metro areas. This reflects limited fixed‑broadband choices away from town centers and a notable number of seasonal/second homes that rely on mobile data when occupied.
• Prepaid and MVNO use: modestly higher than the state’s urban average, driven by seasonal residents, short‑term workers, and cost‑sensitive rural users.

Demographic patterns that differ from Utah overall

• Age: Utah has the nation’s youngest population; Rich County skews older. Smartphone adoption among seniors (65+) is lower than the state’s urban average, and voice‑centric usage is more common in this group. Conversely, school‑age and working‑age residents show near‑universal mobile adoption similar to the rest of Utah.
• Household composition: A larger share of small, rural households and part‑time/seasonal households increases the rate of cellular‑only internet compared with the Wasatch Front.
• Language and multicultural segments: A smaller share of non‑English‑preferring users than statewide, reducing demand for multilingual device and plan support compared with urban Utah.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon all provide 4G LTE in populated places; 5G is present primarily in and around town centers and along US‑89/SR‑30 corridors. 5G mid‑band capacity (e.g., C‑band, 2.5 GHz) is spottier than in Utah’s urban counties, with more reliance on low‑band 5G and LTE.
• Capacity and performance: Typical speeds in town range from tens to low‑hundreds of Mbps on 5G low/mid‑band where available, dropping to single‑digit Mbps in fringe and interior ranchland areas. Seasonal congestion occurs around Bear Lake (especially Garden City and beach/state‑park areas) on summer weekends and event days.
• Backhaul and fiber: Fiber backhaul exists into Garden City/Laketown via regional providers, with microwave backhaul supporting some macro and small cell sites. Outside town centers, limited fiber plant constrains rapid capacity upgrades compared with the Wasatch Front.
• Fixed wireless and satellite: Multiple WISPs serve ridgelines and valleys; Starlink and other LEO satellite services are increasingly used for homes and businesses beyond cable/DSL/fiber footprints, lowering barriers to basic connectivity but shifting some traffic away from mobile hotspots.
• Emergency and public‑safety coverage: FirstNet (AT&T) coverage follows primary roads and town centers; off‑road and basin areas experience gaps, consistent with the county’s terrain and very low population density.

What’s notably different from state-level trends

• Higher cellular-only reliance: Rich County’s cellular‑only or smartphone‑only households are materially above urban Utah, where fiber and cable dominate. Mobile hotspots are a common backup or primary connection in outlying areas and seasonal homes.
• Patchier 5G depth: Coverage exists, but capacity layers (mid‑band 5G) and indoor signal quality lag Utah’s metro counties. Users see more LTE fallback and variability by terrain.
• Seasonal demand spikes: Summer tourism produces short, sharp load peaks on lakeside sectors; carriers sometimes deploy temporary capacity or re‑sectoring during major events. Such extreme seasonality is less pronounced along the Wasatch Front.
• Device mix and plan preferences: Slightly higher penetration of rugged/entry‑tier Android devices, hotspots, and prepaid/MVNO plans than in urban Utah, alongside strong use of mainstream postpaid by permanent residents.

Implications

• Network planning should prioritize additional capacity and spectrum layering around Bear Lake recreation zones, with targeted small cells or sector splits for summer surges.
• Extending fiber backhaul beyond town cores would enable denser 5G and better indoor coverage, narrowing the performance gap with state urban norms.
• Public‑safety and resilience benefit most from fill‑in sites or passive infrastructure (towers, power, backhaul redundancy) along ranchlands and secondary roads where current signal gaps persist.

Notes on figures

• Population is from the 2020 Census; user and household reliance figures are 2023–2024 modeled estimates informed by federal datasets (e.g., ACS device/subscription trends), rural‑county patterns, and carrier deployment norms in northern Utah. They are intended for planning and directional comparison to Utah’s urban counties rather than as official counts.

Social media usage in Rich County, Utah (2025 snapshot)

Scope note: County-level platform stats are not published. Figures below are modeled estimates for Rich County using 2023–2024 Pew Research Center social media adoption rates, Utah/rural adjustments, and ACS age/gender structure. Ranges reflect expected local variance.

Overall penetration (adults 18+)

• Use at least one social platform: 72–78%
• Daily social media users: 55–65% of adults
• Heavy users (2+ platforms used weekly): 45–55% of adults

Most-used platforms (percent of adults who use the platform)

• YouTube: 78–83%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (skewed to under-30s)
• Pinterest: 25–35% (skews female)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Reddit: 10–15% (skews male, under 40)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (professionals/commuters)
• WhatsApp: 8–12% (lower than national average)
• Nextdoor: 2–5% (limited footprint in sparsely populated areas)

Age breakdown (share using any social media; platform lean)

• 13–17: 90–95%; YouTube ≈90%+, TikTok 60–70%, Snapchat 60–70%, Instagram 55–65%, Facebook ~25–35%
• 18–29: 90–95%; Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat dominant; YouTube near-universal; Facebook secondary
• 30–49: 80–85%; Facebook and YouTube anchor; Instagram mid-tier; TikTok growing
• 50–64: 65–75%; Facebook and YouTube primary; Pinterest notable among women
• 65+: 45–55%; Facebook and YouTube most common; limited use of newer apps

Gender differences (directional)

• Women: Higher use of Facebook (+5–10 pts vs men), Pinterest (+20–30 pts), Instagram (slight lead), TikTok (slight lead)
• Men: Higher use of YouTube (+5–10 pts), Reddit (+8–12 pts), X (+3–6 pts)

Behavioral trends and local context

• Facebook Groups are the coordination hub for community updates, school/booster activities, town and county notices, church- and volunteer-oriented organizing, and local buy/sell/trade.
• Strong seasonality tied to Bear Lake tourism: visible summer spikes in Instagram/TikTok content, local business promotions, event pages, and short-run Facebook/Instagram ad campaigns targeting visitors from the Wasatch Front/Idaho.
• YouTube is the default for how-to, ranch/farm, hunting/fishing, and outdoor recreation content; long-form viewing is common among 30+.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the most-used social messenger; Snapchat dominates teen/college-age messaging; WhatsApp usage is niche.
• Ad effectiveness: Facebook/Instagram deliver the best local reach/engagement per dollar; geo-fenced campaigns around Garden City/Bear Lake during peak seasons outperform off-season efforts.
• Posting/engagement windows cluster in evenings and weekends; engagement increases around school calendars, community events, and summer/holiday periods.

Sources: Pew Research Center (Social Media Use in 2024/2025; Teens and Social Media), U.S. Census Bureau ACS (age/gender mix), NTIA Internet Use Survey, Utah state broadband and rural communications analyses. Figures are localized estimates derived from these datasets.