San Juan County

Key demographics for San Juan County, Utah (most recent Census/ACS)

• Population size

  • 14,746 (2020 Decennial Census)

• Age

  • Median age: ~33
  • Under 18: ~31%
  • 65 and over: ~15%

• Gender

  • Female: ~49.5%
  • Male: ~50.5%

• Race and ethnicity (2020 Census)

  • American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~50%
  • White alone: ~44%
  • Two or more races: ~4%
  • Black or African American alone: ~0.3%
  • Asian alone: ~0.3%
  • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~6%

• Household data (ACS 2018–2022 5-year)

  • Households: ~4.5k
  • Average household size: ~3.3–3.4
  • Indicative profile: high share of family households and larger household sizes relative to U.S. average

Insights

• San Juan County is majority American Indian/Alaska Native, reflecting the large Navajo Nation presence.
• The population is relatively young with larger household sizes than the national average, though slightly older than the Utah statewide median age.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population, race/ethnicity); American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (age, households).

San Juan County, Utah snapshot

• Population and density: ~14,600 residents across 7,933 sq mi (≈1.8 people/sq mi), among the lowest densities in Utah; large portions are Navajo Nation and other tribal/public lands.
• Estimated email users: ≈9,800 residents use email regularly (≈85% of people age 13+), reflecting rural/tribal connectivity constraints below statewide norms.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users):
  • 13–17: ~8%
  • 18–34: ~34%
  • 35–54: ~36%
  • 55–64: ~11%
  • 65+: ~11%
• Gender split among email users: ≈50% female, 50% male (usage rates are effectively parity by gender).
• Digital access and trends:
  • About three-quarters of households have a broadband subscription (ACS 2018–2022), well below Utah’s statewide level, with connectivity strongest in Blanding and Monticello and weakest in remote/tribal areas.
  • Fixed broadband infrastructure is sparse outside towns; many households rely on mobile data, fixed wireless, or satellite, pushing email access toward smartphones.
  • Broadband adoption has trended upward since 2018 as fiber and fixed‑wireless footprints expand, narrowing but not eliminating the rural/tribal digital gap.

Implications: Email reach is high but constrained by uneven last‑mile access; mobile‑optimized communication performs best, with older adults and remote communities benefiting from low‑bandwidth formats.

Summary of mobile phone usage in San Juan County, Utah (latest available public data: ACS 2019–2023 5-year; FCC mobile/broadband datasets through late 2023/2024)

Headline metrics

• Population and households: ~14,500 residents; ~4,600 households
• Smartphone access (household-level): 86% of households have a smartphone (Utah: ~95%)
• Internet at home (household-level):
  • Any home internet: 82% (Utah: ~94%)
  • Home broadband (cable/DSL/fiber/fixed wireless/satellite): 76% (Utah: ~91%)
  • Cellular data plan present in household: 78% (Utah: ~88%)
  • Cellular-only internet (no other home broadband): 27% (Utah: ~12%)
  • No home internet: 18% (Utah: ~6%)

Estimated mobile user base

• Smartphone-using households: ~3,950–4,000
• Estimated resident smartphone lines in use: ~7,600 (assumes ~1.9 smartphones per smartphone-owning household; consistent with national device-per-household patterns)
• Cellular-only internet households: ~1,250, indicating a sizable portion of residents rely on mobile networks as their primary home connection

Demographic breakdown and context

• Age: San Juan skews slightly older than Utah overall; a larger 65+ share than the state, and a smaller 18–34 share than the state average, moderating top-end smartphone adoption versus Utah’s very young profile
• Race and ethnicity: Roughly half of residents are American Indian/Alaska Native (predominantly Navajo Nation); ~45% White, ~7% Hispanic/Latino. This tribal/rural composition is associated with higher reliance on mobile internet where fixed infrastructure is sparse
• Income and affordability: Median household income is substantially below the Utah state median, and poverty is notably higher. The 2024 wind-down of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program increases risk of disconnections or shifts to cellular-only service among low-income households

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Mobile networks: 4G LTE is the de facto baseline across towns and along major corridors (US‑191, US‑163, US‑191/163 junctions; UT‑95/261). 5G low-band is present in and around population centers such as Blanding, Monticello, and Bluff; mid-band 5G capacity is limited and drops off quickly outside towns, with persistent dead zones across canyonlands and tribal backcountry
• Fixed broadband: Fiber is available in town centers via regional incumbents and co-ops, but availability falls off rapidly in dispersed housing and tribal chapters; many outlying homes depend on fixed wireless, LTE hotspots, or satellite. Fiber buildouts are occurring in pockets but remain uneven
• Tribal/mobile providers: In addition to national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile), tribal-focused providers serve the Utah portion of Navajo Nation, improving LTE access in chapters such as Aneth and Oljato–Monument Valley, though capacity and backhaul constraints remain
• Public/anchor connectivity: Schools, libraries, clinics, and chapter houses function as critical connectivity anchors and community Wi‑Fi points. Tourism-heavy sites experience seasonal network congestion relative to provisioned capacity
• Funding pipeline: State and federal programs (e.g., BEAD, Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program) are targeting unserved locations; as of 2024, multiple fiber and fixed‑wireless projects are planned or underway, but large geographic gaps remain to be built out

How San Juan differs from Utah statewide (key trends)

• Lower household smartphone access: About 9 percentage points below the state, reflecting demographic and income differences
• Greater reliance on mobile as primary home internet: Cellular-only households are more than double the state share (27% vs 12%), indicating mobile networks substitute for fixed broadband in many areas
• Higher share with no home internet: Roughly triple the state rate (18% vs 6%), underscoring infrastructure gaps and affordability barriers
• Sparser 5G and mid-band capacity: 5G is localized to towns with limited mid-band capacity versus Utah’s metro corridors, which feature broad 5G coverage and higher median speeds
• Demand volatility: Seasonal tourism drives sharper, localized congestion (Monument Valley, Bears Ears, Lake Powell-adjacent areas) relative to Utah’s urbanized Wasatch Front

Implications and operational insights

• Coverage and capacity planning should prioritize tribal chapters and dispersed housing where cellular-only dependence is highest
• Mid-band 5G and microwave/fiber backhaul upgrades in town centers and tourist nodes would relieve recurring congestion and improve reliability
• Device and plan mix skews more prepaid and hotspot-dependent than the state average; retail and subsidy strategies need to reflect affordability sensitivities
• Continued fiber extension and high-capacity fixed wireless to unserved clusters would reduce cellular-only reliance and improve digital inclusion

Sources and reference years: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019–2023 (S2801 Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions; county vs state comparisons), 2020 Decennial Census demographic composition, FCC Broadband Data Collection and mobile coverage datasets through late 2023/2024, state broadband program updates through 2024.

San Juan County, Utah — social media usage snapshot (2024)

Core user stats

• Population: ~15,000 residents; ~12,500 residents age 13+
• Monthly social media users (13+): ~9,200–10,000 (≈72–78% of residents 13+)
• Daily active users: ~6,800–7,600 (≈53–58% of residents 13+)
• Device profile: predominantly mobile-first; many users rely on smartphones and cellular data rather than wired broadband

Age mix of local social users (share of social media users)

• 13–17: 12–14%
• 18–24: 14–16%
• 25–34: 20–22%
• 35–54: 32–34%
• 55+: 18–20%

Gender breakdown (share of social media users)

• Female: 52–54%
• Male: 46–48%

Most‑used platforms among residents 13+ (estimated monthly reach; share of total residents)

• YouTube: 72–76%
• Facebook (incl. Messenger): 58–62%
• Instagram: 36–40%
• TikTok: 28–32%
• Snapchat: 22–26% overall; 55–65% among 13–24
• Pinterest: 16–20% (skews female 25–44)
• X (Twitter): 10–12%
• Reddit: 9–11%
• LinkedIn: 8–10%
• Nextdoor: negligible countywide; Facebook Groups fill the neighborhood role

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups and Messenger are central for local news, school/athletics, church and tribal announcements, lost-and-found, and buy/sell activity.
• Youth skew to visual/messaging: Teens and early 20s are heavy on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram Reels; group chats and Stories drive the most repeat engagement.
• Mobile, short‑form content wins: Short vertical video and image carousels outperform long posts due to mobile data constraints and on-the-go consumption.
• Evenings and weekends peak: Highest local activity is 7–10 pm MT and weekend afternoons; weekday lunch hours show a secondary spike.
• Closed‑group trust: Residents favor closed or invite-only groups for community matters; Marketplace and local swap groups are very active.
• Seasonal tourism effect: Posts about Bears Ears, Monument Valley, Lake Powell corridor, and events in Monticello/Blanding/Bluff draw sizable nonresident traffic in spring–fall; use geotargeting to separate locals from visitors.
• Cultural relevance matters: Content that’s locally grounded and respectful of Native communities performs better; bilingual or culturally aware messaging improves shares and comments.
• Info-seeking patterns: Practical updates (weather/road closures, wildfire info, school schedules, gas prices) reliably outperform brand‑forward messaging.
• Low influencer density: Micro‑influencers (coaches, school accounts, tribal/community programs, EMS and parks pages) outperform large creators for local reach.
• Ads that work: Geofencing population centers and highway corridors (US‑191, US‑163, US‑191/US‑491 junctions) plus lookalikes from engaged group members yield the most efficient reach.

Notes on methodology and certainty

• Figures are best‑available local estimates synthesized from U.S. Census/ACS population structure, Pew Research Center platform adoption (2023–2024), and platform advertising audience tools (Meta, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Pinterest, X) as of 2024, calibrated for rural usage patterns in Utah. County‑level platform reporting is not published directly; ranges reflect that uncertainty while keeping figures decision‑ready.