Lincoln County

Lincoln County, Wyoming — key demographics

Population size

• 20,5xx (2023 estimate); 19,581 (2020 Census). Modest growth since 2020.

Age

• Under 5: ~6.7%
• Under 18: ~26%
• 65 and over: ~17%
• Median age: ~38 years

Gender

• Female: ~49%
• Male: ~51%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: ~95–96%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.3%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~0.7%
• Asian alone: ~0.4–0.5%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~8–9%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~88%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~7,300
• Persons per household: ~2.77
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~81%
• Median household income: ~$75–77k
• Per capita income: ~$33k
• Persons in poverty: ~6–7%

Insights

• Population has edged up since 2020.
• Age structure skews family-oriented (about one-quarter under 18) with a sizable senior share (~17%).
• The county is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with an 8–9% Hispanic population.
• Household size is typical for rural/micropolitan areas; high owner-occupancy and comparatively low poverty.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census; 2023 Population Estimates Program; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year; QuickFacts for Lincoln County, WY).

• County context: ≈21,000 residents across ≈4,095 sq mi (≈5.1 people per sq mi), with population clustered along the Star Valley/US‑89 corridor (Afton–Thayne–Alpine) and Kemmerer/Frontier.

• Estimated email users: ≈15,000 residents (about 90% of adults; ≈70% of total residents).

• Age distribution of email adoption (share of each age group using email):

  • 13–17: ~80%
  • 18–34: ~96%
  • 35–54: ~95%
  • 55–64: ~90%
  • 65+: ~79%

• Gender split among email users: near parity (≈50% female, ≈50% male), mirroring the county’s overall sex ratio; usage rates differ by at most 1–2 percentage points.

• Digital access and trends:

  • Household broadband subscription is in the low‑80% range, consistent with rural Wyoming; roughly low‑teens of households are smartphone‑only.
  • Fiber is increasingly available in Star Valley population centers; outlying ranchlands and canyons rely more on DSL and fixed‑wireless, with lower evening speeds and higher latency.
  • Connectivity density is greatest along US‑89; service quality drops with distance from towns, affecting seniors and lower‑income households most.
  • Ongoing state/federal rural‑broadband investments are accelerating fiber builds, lifting email reliability and multi‑device use.

Mobile phone usage in Lincoln County, Wyoming — 2025 snapshot

Population and mobile user estimates

• Population and households: ≈21,000 residents and ≈7,400 households (ACS 2019–2023 5‑year; rounded).
• Adult smartphone users: ≈12,800 adults (about 85% of adults 18+) plus ≈1,550 teens 13–17 with smartphones, totaling ≈14,300–14,500 smartphone users countywide (≈69–70% of the total population). Wyoming statewide adult smartphone adoption trends closer to 87–89%, so Lincoln County runs a bit lower.
• Wireless‑only voice (no landline): ≈76% of adults live in wireless‑only households in Lincoln County versus roughly 74% statewide, reflecting faster abandonment of landlines in rural households.
• Smartphone‑only home internet: ≈12–14% of households rely primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet (about 900–1,050 households), higher than the Wyoming average of ≈9–10%. This is most common outside fiber footprints (rural Star Valley outskirts, Cokeville‑Nounan flats, ranchlands).

Demographic usage patterns (estimates derived from ACS age mix and national rural adoption rates)

• Age
  • 18–34: ~97% smartphone adoption; heavy app‑centric use, highest 5G take‑up.
  • 35–64: ~90% smartphone adoption; above‑average use of hotspotting for remote work and ranch operations.
  • 65+: ~60–65% smartphone adoption; below state average, reflecting coverage gaps and cost sensitivity.
  • Teens 13–17: ~95% smartphone adoption; highest daily data use per person.
• Income and education
  • Lower‑income households are 2–3× more likely to be smartphone‑only for home access than higher‑income households. This gap is wider than the Wyoming average because fixed broadband choices are sparse outside fiber‑served town centers.
• Geography
  • Towns (Alpine, Afton, Thayne, Kemmerer/Diamondville) show state‑like adoption; remote canyons and high basins show lower adoption and more voice‑only lines due to coverage constraints.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carrier presence: Native service from Verizon, AT&T (including FirstNet), T‑Mobile, and Union Wireless (regional carrier). MVNOs generally work where the host network has native signal.
• Coverage pattern
  • Strong 4G LTE and low‑band 5G in population centers and along US‑89 (Alpine–Thayne–Afton) and US‑30 (Cokeville–Kemmerer–Opal).
  • Notable dead zones and fringe service in the Greys River corridor, Salt River Range east slopes, Bridger‑Teton National Forest areas, and some ranchlands between nodes.
  • Cross‑border dynamics: Devices near Alpine and the Idaho line frequently hand off to Idaho sectors, which can affect performance and plans that limit roaming.
• 5G specifics
  • Low‑band 5G is common in towns; mid‑band 5G (e.g., 2.5 GHz) is sparse, so real‑world speeds often resemble strong LTE. mmWave is effectively absent.
  • Typical user speeds: 20–80 Mbps in town cores; 5–20 Mbps on valley fringes; sub‑5 Mbps or no service in canyons. Statewide urban medians are higher due to broader mid‑band deployments in Cheyenne, Casper, and Gillette.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Fiber from Silver Star Communications (Star Valley, Alpine) and All West (Kemmerer/Diamondville) underpins the best mobile sites; many mountain sites still rely on microwave backhaul, limiting 5G capacity.
  • Ongoing state/BEAD and ARPA builds (2024–2028) are extending fiber laterals in Star Valley and to outlying communities, which should lift mobile backhaul capacity and reduce peak‑time slowdowns.

How Lincoln County differs from the Wyoming average

• Reliance on cellular for home internet is meaningfully higher, driven by patchy fixed broadband options outside town centers.
• Adult smartphone adoption is a bit lower overall, but teen adoption is on par with the state; the age split in adoption is wider than average.
• 5G availability is more “coverage‑first” (low‑band) with limited mid‑band capacity; consequently, median mobile speeds trail state urban medians, and performance is more variable with terrain.
• Seasonal and corridor effects are stronger: weekend/holiday congestion around Alpine Junction, Palisades/Greys River recreation areas, and traffic along US‑89/US‑30 produces sharper demand spikes than the state average.
• Cross‑state handoffs with Idaho networks near Alpine/Etna are more common than in most Wyoming counties, complicating both user experience and network planning.

Key takeaways

• Expect roughly 14,000–15,000 active smartphone users in the county, with high teen adoption but a persistent senior adoption gap.
• Cellular networks cover population corridors well but are capacity‑limited away from fiber‑fed nodes; dead zones remain in canyons and forested terrain.
• Compared to Wyoming overall, Lincoln County shows higher smartphone‑only home internet reliance, lower mid‑band 5G penetration, and more pronounced seasonal load swings—factors to weigh in service planning, public‑safety communications, and digital‑equity initiatives.

Social media usage in Lincoln County, Wyoming (2025 snapshot)

How many use social media (adults 18+)

• Any social media: ~80% of adults (estimate)
• Note: Figures are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media adoption rates, adjusted for Wyoming’s rural age mix (ACS 2019–2023). County-level platform stats are not officially published.

Most‑used platforms among adults (estimated reach)

• YouTube: ~80%
• Facebook: ~67%
• Instagram: ~42%
• TikTok: ~30%
• Snapchat: ~28%
• LinkedIn: ~24%
• X (Twitter): ~20%
• Reddit: ~16%
• Nextdoor: ~6%

Age-group usage patterns (local tendencies align with rural U.S.)

• Teens (13–17): Very high on YouTube and Snapchat; strong on TikTok and Instagram; minimal Facebook use.
• 18–29: YouTube and Instagram dominant; Snapchat and TikTok strong; Facebook used mainly for groups/events.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram moderate; TikTok/Snapchat secondary.
• 50–64: Facebook first, then YouTube; limited Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube only; others minimal.

Gender skew by platform (share of platform’s local users, estimated)

• Facebook: ~57% female, 43% male
• Instagram: ~60% female, 40% male
• TikTok: ~62% female, 38% male
• Snapchat: ~63% female, 37% male
• YouTube: ~58% male, 42% female
• Reddit: ~68% male, 32% female
• X (Twitter): ~61% male, 39% female

Behavioral trends in Lincoln County

• Community-first Facebook usage: Heavy reliance on local Groups for news, school alerts, road/weather updates, buy/sell/trade, and civic issues; high comment activity on community posts.
• Video as utility: YouTube favored for how‑to/repair, ranching/outdoors, equipment maintenance, church services, and local sports highlights.
• Visual discovery: Instagram (Stories/Reels) used by young families and small businesses; local events, real estate, and dining perform well.
• Private-by-default youth comms: Snapchat is the primary teen/young adult messenger; Snap Map usage around events.
• Short‑form growth: TikTok engagement rising among 18–34 for outdoor, hunting/fishing, rodeo, fitness, and local humor; cross‑posted to Instagram Reels.
• Timing/device: Mobile-first consumption; engagement peaks before work (6–8 a.m.), lunch (noon–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–9 p.m.), with weekend surges around local events and sports.
• Local info trust: Residents prioritize locally sourced updates (schools, county pages, first responders, WYDOT feeds) and word‑of‑mouth in Groups over national news pages.
• Ads/organic performance: Best ROI typically from Facebook/Instagram geo‑targeting and boosted posts tied to events or offers; YouTube pre‑roll effective for broad awareness; Snapchat geofilters work for high school sports and festivals.

Note on methodology

• Percentages are county-level estimates derived from Pew Research (2024) platform adoption and ACS demographic structure for Lincoln County; they reflect likely local reach rather than official counts.