Suffolk County

Key demographics — Suffolk County, Massachusetts (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population size

• 797,936 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~33
• Age distribution: ~15% under 18; ~37% ages 18–34; ~38% ages 35–64; ~10% ages 65+

Gender

• ~52% female
• ~48% male

Race and ethnicity (mutually exclusive; Hispanic is of any race)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~45%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~19%
• Non-Hispanic Asian: ~12%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~22%
• Non-Hispanic Other/Two+ races: ~2%

Households and housing

• Households: ~320,000
• Average household size: ~2.4 persons
• Family households: ~42% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~22%
• Tenure: ~36% owner-occupied, ~64% renter-occupied

Insights

• Younger, more renter-heavy, and more racially/ethnically diverse than Massachusetts overall, with a large 18–34 population and high rental share concentrated in Boston, Chelsea, and Revere.

• Estimated users: Suffolk County has about 800,000 residents (ACS). With ~670,000 adults and ~94% adult email adoption (Pew), there are roughly 630,000 adult email users; including teens pushes total users near 680,000.
• Age distribution of use: Email adoption is effectively universal among younger adults and remains very high with age: 18–29 ≈99%, 30–49 ≈98%, 50–64 ≈96%, 65+ ≈92%. Given the county’s young profile, a large share of users are 18–34.
• Gender split: Usage is at parity. With the county population ~51% female, email users are approximately 51% female, 49% male.
• Digital access trends: About nine in ten households have a broadband subscription and roughly 95% have a computer; smartphone ownership is ~9 in 10 adults, with roughly one in five being smartphone‑only internet users. Gigabit cable and expanding fiber plus countywide 5G underpin high reliability and frequent mobile email access.
• Local density/connectivity: Suffolk County is among the nation’s densest (≈14,000 people per square mile), supporting near‑ubiquitous fixed broadband availability in Boston, Chelsea, Revere, and Winthrop. Public connectivity is strong via Boston Public Library’s 25+ branches and municipal “Wicked Free Wi‑Fi” hotspots.

Suffolk County, MA mobile phone usage — 2025 snapshot

Headline user estimates

• Residents: ≈812,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 population estimate program).
• Estimated smartphone users: ≈675,000 residents.
  • Method: apply age-specific smartphone ownership (Pew Research, 2023: 97% ages 18–49, 89% ages 50–64, 76% ages 65+) to Suffolk’s younger age mix (ACS), plus teens (≈95% adoption among ages 13–17).
• Households with a smartphone: ≈94–95% (ACS 2019–2023, S2801).
• Households with a cellular data plan (smartphone or other mobile device): ≈89–91% (ACS S2801).
• Smartphone-only internet households (cellular data plan but no fixed broadband at home): ≈15% in Suffolk vs ≈11–12% statewide (ACS S2801).

Demographic breakdown and how Suffolk differs from the Massachusetts average

• Younger population drives higher smartphone saturation and 5G device penetration:
  • Median age: Suffolk ≈33 vs Massachusetts ≈40 (ACS). Suffolk has a larger share of 18–34-year-olds, where smartphone ownership is near-universal, lifting overall mobile usage above the state average.
• Renters and mobility:
  • Renter households are a strong majority in Suffolk (Boston/Chelsea/Revere/Winthrop) vs a minority statewide (ACS). Renters show higher rates of smartphone-only internet reliance, contributing to Suffolk’s above-state smartphone-only share (~15% vs ~11–12%).
• Race/ethnicity and language:
  • Suffolk is more diverse (substantially higher shares of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian residents than the state average, and a higher share of households speaking a language other than English). Consistent with national and Massachusetts digital equity findings, these groups are more likely to rely on smartphones for primary connectivity, widening the mobile-reliance gap versus the statewide profile.
• Income and education:
  • Suffolk has both high-income professionals and larger low-to-moderate income populations than the state average. The lower-income segment shows materially higher smartphone-only rates (smartphone plus cellular plan in lieu of home broadband), while the professional cohort has high 5G device adoption and heavy data usage. The result is a “barbell” distribution—more mobile-reliant households at the low end and more 5G power users at the high end—than Massachusetts overall.
• Students and seasonal patterns:
  • Large higher-education population (BU, Northeastern, UMass Boston, Suffolk University, etc.) pushes device-per-person ratios and app-based communication/transport usage higher than the state average, especially during academic terms.

Digital infrastructure and performance (county-specific strengths vs state-level)

• 5G coverage and capacity:
  • Near-universal 5G population coverage across Suffolk from all three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon), with dense mid-band deployments (n41 and C‑Band) and targeted mmWave in high-traffic districts (Downtown/Financial District, Seaport, Back Bay, Fenway, Longwood Medical Area, parts of East Boston). This density materially exceeds typical Massachusetts suburban/rural coverage and underpins higher median mobile speeds in Suffolk than statewide averages.
• Small cells and fiber backhaul:
  • Thousands of streetlight and rooftop small cells and extensive metro fiber backhaul (multiple providers) give Suffolk urban cores significantly more sector capacity per square mile than most of the state, supporting better peak-time performance and more consistent indoor coverage.
• Transportation and venues:
  • Logan International Airport (East Boston) operates a multi-carrier 5G-capable distributed antenna system (DAS), and major venues (TD Garden, Fenway Park, Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, hospitals in Longwood) run high-capacity DAS networks. MBTA cellular coverage is strong on surface corridors; a multi-year project is upgrading in-tunnel coverage to 5G across the subway. These assets concentrate user traffic but keep throughput higher than typical statewide transport corridors.
• Public and community connectivity:
  • City-supported “Wicked Free WiFi,” Boston Public Library branches, and public housing/community centers provide robust supplemental Wi‑Fi. Combined with extensive private Wi‑Fi in offices, universities, and hospitality, this offloads mobile traffic and improves user experience. The density and breadth of these networks are well above the state average.
• Fixed wireless home internet interplay:
  • Verizon 5G Home and T‑Mobile Home Internet have broad availability in Suffolk. This blurs lines between “mobile” and “home” connectivity and, relative to the state, raises the share of households getting primary internet via cellular networks.

Usage patterns and implications

• Higher daily mobile data consumption than the state average, driven by commuting, app-based services (mobility, delivery, payments), and streaming in dense urban settings.
• Above-state adoption of unlimited and premium 5G plans in professional cohorts; above-state reliance on prepaid/MVNO and smartphone-only connectivity in lower-income and LEP households.
• Digital equity focus: despite high overall smartphone saturation, Suffolk’s smartphone-only households (~15%) indicate a persistent affordability and in-home broadband gap concentrated in Dorchester, Roxbury, East Boston, Revere, and Chelsea—larger and more spatially concentrated than in much of Massachusetts.

Key takeaways

• Suffolk County is a “mobile-first” county by state standards: more users, more 5G, and more smartphone-only households than the Massachusetts average.
• Network quality is bolstered by dense small cells, fiber, venue/airport DAS, and extensive public Wi‑Fi, yielding faster, more consistent 5G performance than typical statewide conditions.
• The same urban factors that elevate performance also heighten inequality in access type: smartphone-only dependence is meaningfully higher in Suffolk than across Massachusetts, highlighting ongoing affordability and adoption gaps even amid best-in-state mobile infrastructure.

Social media in Suffolk County, MA (Boston, Chelsea, Revere, Winthrop) — short breakdown

Context and audience size

• Suffolk County is young, urban, and highly connected, with social use at or above U.S. urban benchmarks. Expect very high penetration among under-50s and strong multi‑platform behavior.

Most-used platforms (adult usage, U.S. benchmark shares for reference)

• YouTube: 83%
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 47%
• Pinterest: 35%
• TikTok: 33%
• Snapchat: 30%
• LinkedIn: 30–31%
• Reddit: 22%
• X (Twitter): 22%
• WhatsApp: ~21% These platform shares are U.S. adult benchmarks (Pew Research Center, 2024). Suffolk County’s younger, college-heavy profile typically lifts Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and LinkedIn above national averages, while Facebook and YouTube remain broad-reach staples across ages.

Age-group patterns (local implications)

• 18–34: Heavy on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube; frequent creators, short‑form video natives; high event discovery (restaurants, nightlife, concerts) via IG/TikTok; strong use of DMs and group chats.
• 35–54: Multi‑platform power users; Facebook/Instagram for family and local groups, YouTube for how‑tos/news, LinkedIn for professional networking; growing TikTok/Reels adoption.
• 55+: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Facebook Groups and neighborhood pages widely used; Instagram usage growing but still secondary; lower TikTok/Snapchat adoption.

Gender breakdown (behavioral skews)

• Women: Over-index on Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest (shopping discovery, local services, parenting/school groups).
• Men: Over-index on YouTube, Reddit, and X (news, sports, tech, civic discourse).
• LinkedIn skews slightly male and higher-income/education; Instagram Stories/Reels and TikTok skew slightly female among younger cohorts.

Behavioral trends observed in comparable urban counties and evident in Suffolk

• Short-form video first: TikTok and Instagram Reels are primary discovery surfaces for food, events, fashion, and local creators; cross-posting is common.
• Groups and localism: Facebook Groups and Reddit (e.g., r/boston, hyperlocal subs) are key for neighborhood intel, housing leads, and civic issues; Nextdoor is present but secondary to Facebook Groups.
• Professional visibility: LinkedIn is unusually strong for a county of this size due to the dense higher‑ed, healthcare, and tech ecosystem; thought-leadership and hiring activity are high.
• Messaging as social: Instagram DMs, WhatsApp (notably among immigrant communities), and iMessage/GroupMe drive private sharing and event coordination more than public feeds.
• News and transit: X and Reddit carry real-time breaking news, sports, and MBTA updates; YouTube long-form complements with explainers/podcasts.
• Commerce: Instagram and TikTok fuel local SMB discovery and impulse purchases; Pinterest drives planning (home, weddings, events); YouTube reviews influence high-consideration buys.
• Content cadence: Peaks around commute windows and late evenings; strong seasonal spikes aligned to the academic calendar, move-in/move-out periods, and sports playoffs.

Practical takeaways for Suffolk County targeting

• Use Instagram/TikTok for 18–34 reach and creative testing; add Snapchat for campus/geofenced activations.
• Maintain Facebook and YouTube for county-wide reach and 35+; lean on Facebook Groups for community engagement.
• Invest in LinkedIn for B2B, recruiting, and professional services.
• Pair public content with DM-friendly assets (Stories, short verticals) to capture private-share behaviors.
• Localize: neighborhood hashtags, creator partnerships, and event tie-ins outperform generic creative.

Note on figures: Platform percentages above are the latest U.S. adult benchmarks (Pew Research Center, 2024). Suffolk County’s actual shares generally track these but skew higher for Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and LinkedIn due to its younger, highly educated, urban population.