Covington County

To ensure I give you the most accurate figures, which data vintage do you prefer?

• 2020 Decennial Census (official counts, limited detail), or
• 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates (most current small-area estimates, includes age, households, etc.)

If you don’t specify, I’ll use ACS 2019–2023 and report: total population, median age, age distribution, sex distribution, race/ethnicity shares, number of households, average household size, and family vs. nonfamily households.

Covington County, MS snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: ~18,000 residents; ~44 people per square mile (rural).
• Estimated email users: ~11,500–13,000 residents 13+ (about 75–85% of those 13+), based on national email adoption and Mississippi connectivity rates.
• Age mix of email users (approx. share of users):
  • 13–17: 6–8%
  • 18–34: 22–27%
  • 35–54: 30–36%
  • 55–64: 12–16%
  • 65+: 16–20%
• Gender split among users: roughly even, mirroring the population (~51% female, ~49% male); no meaningful adoption gap by gender.
• Digital access and trends:
  • About 70% of households have a fixed broadband subscription; 25–30% lack one, with many relying on smartphones.
  • Smartphone ownership is widespread (roughly 80–90% of adults), supporting email access even where home broadband is absent.
  • Fixed broadband options are limited in some areas (single‑provider and sub‑100/20 Mbps pockets), but fiber buildouts are expanding through recent state/federal programs.
  • Public Wi‑Fi and computers at libraries/schools supplement access.

Method: Applied U.S. email usage by age and Mississippi internet adoption to local population. Figures are directional, suitable for planning rather than compliance.

Below is a structured, best-available estimate of mobile phone usage in Covington County, Mississippi, with emphasis on how local patterns differ from statewide trends. Where county-specific data are not published, figures are modeled from Census/ACS demographics, rural adoption patterns, and national smartphone-ownership research; ranges are provided to reflect uncertainty.

Executive snapshot

• Estimated mobile phone users: 14,000–16,000 residents
• Smartphone users: 13,000–15,000
• Households relying primarily on mobile data for home internet: higher than the state average
• Notable differences vs Mississippi overall: slightly lower overall smartphone penetration; higher prepaid usage and Android share; greater mobile-only internet reliance due to patchier fixed broadband; more variable 5G performance outside towns

How the estimate was built (high level)

• Population base: ~18–19k residents (2020–2023 range). Adults ~75% of population.
• Ownership/adoption: Rural counties in MS typically track a few points below the U.S. smartphone average but show higher “smartphone-dependent” internet use. Applying 78–83% smartphone adoption to adults (plus partial adoption among teens) yields the user counts above.

User estimates and usage patterns

• Overall device ownership

  • Any mobile phone: roughly 80–88% of residents
  • Smartphones: roughly 72–82% of residents
  • Differences vs state: Likely a few points lower on ownership than Mississippi overall, but with a larger share of mobile-only internet users.

• Plan types and spending

  • Prepaid and value MVNOs (Cricket, Metro by T‑Mobile, Straight Talk, Boost) have an outsized share compared with postpaid plans.
  • Average device upgrade cycles tend to be longer (keeping phones 3–4+ years).
  • Differences vs state: Prepaid share higher; average monthly spend lower; more frequent line sharing within households.

• Platform mix

  • Android share higher than state average; iPhone share correspondingly lower.
  • Differences vs state: Skews more Android, driven by income and prepaid plan/device availability.

Demographic breakdown (and what it means for mobile use)

• Age

  • Seniors (65+) form a sizable slice; adoption among seniors lags younger groups.
  • Teens and young adults show near-universal phone ownership, heavy social/video use, and hotspotting for schoolwork when fixed broadband is unavailable.
  • Differences vs state: Slightly older age structure than urban MS counties; this drags overall smartphone penetration a bit lower, but youths’ mobile intensity is similar or higher.

• Income and affordability

  • Median household income is below the statewide median.
  • Higher participation in affordability programs (Lifeline; Affordable Connectivity Program when funded) and use of budget carriers.
  • Differences vs state: Greater sensitivity to device and plan costs; higher likelihood of mobile-only or mobile-first households.

• Race/ethnicity

  • The county’s population is primarily White and Black, with smaller Hispanic/Latino and other groups.
  • Program participation (e.g., Lifeline) and mobile-first use are elevated in communities facing affordability or infrastructure gaps.
  • Differences vs state: Patterns broadly track rural MS counties; the notable difference is the degree of mobile dependence where fixed broadband is sparse.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage and performance

  • All three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) provide LTE; 5G is present but most consistent near Collins and along major corridors (e.g., US‑49). Outside towns, expect a mix of low‑band 5G/LTE with variable speeds.
  • Mid‑band 5G capacity is mostly town/road‑centered; mmWave is effectively absent.
  • Differences vs state: More pronounced “corridor vs off‑corridor” performance gap; fewer sectors with high-capacity mid‑band 5G than in larger MS metros.

• Backhaul and fiber

  • Fiber backhaul is strongest along US‑49 and into Collins; electric‑co‑op fiber builds and regional providers have expanded but remain uneven outside town limits.
  • Where fiber/cable is lacking, carriers rely more on microwave backhaul, which can cap peak capacity.
  • Differences vs state: Lower fiber density than urban counties; progress from co‑op builds helps but doesn’t fully close gaps.

• Fixed broadband landscape (affecting mobile reliance)

  • In-town: cable/fiber options exist in parts of Collins and select communities; performance is competitive.
  • Out-of-town: DSL or fixed wireless common; satellite fills remaining gaps.
  • Result: Higher share of households use mobile hotspots or phone tethering as primary/backup home internet.
  • Differences vs state: Mobile substitution for home internet is more prevalent than the state average.

• Public and institutional access

  • Schools, libraries, and municipal buildings offer key Wi‑Fi access; K‑12 hotspot programs are commonly used to bridge homework gaps.
  • FirstNet coverage is available for public safety via AT&T; rural coverage may still rely on LTE in many areas.
  • Differences vs state: Heavier reliance on institution-provided connectivity in rural zones.

Behavioral and service trends that stand out vs Mississippi overall

• Higher mobile-only internet reliance due to patchier fixed broadband.
• Greater prepaid/MVNO penetration and budget-conscious device choices; longer device lifespans.
• Larger Android share and lower iOS share than urban counties.
• More variable 5G experience; LTE remains the reliability baseline off main corridors.
• Community anchor institutions play a bigger role in connectivity, and carrier hotspot programs are more impactful for students.

Notes and caveats

• County-specific mobile ownership datasets are limited; figures here are modeled from rural-MS patterns, national research on smartphone adoption, and known infrastructure conditions.

Below is a short, practical snapshot for Covington County, MS. Exact county-level platform stats aren’t published; figures are best estimates extrapolated from the county’s age/sex makeup and recent Pew/national rural-South usage patterns.

Topline user stats

• Population: ~18–19k; residents 13+ ≈ 15–16k
• Social media users (13+): ≈ 12k–14k (75–85% penetration)
• Internet access: broadband/home internet somewhat below U.S. average; smartphone reliance relatively high (smartphone use among adults likely 80%+)

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+, monthly; ranges reflect uncertainty)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75% (highest daily use; Groups/Marketplace very strong)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 30–35%
• Snapchat: 25–30% (strong among teens/20s)
• X/Twitter: 10–15% (news/sports niche)
• Reddit: 8–12% (younger, hobby-focused)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (lower than national avg; professional pockets)
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited local footprint)

Age breakdown of social media users (share of total users)

• 13–24: ≈ 18–20%
• 25–44: ≈ 35–38% (largest active cohort)
• 45–64: ≈ 28–30%
• 65+: ≈ 12–15% (Facebook-heavy, lower on others)

Gender breakdown of social media users

• Female: ≈ 52–55%
• Male: ≈ 45–48% Notes: Women over-index on Facebook/Instagram; men over-index on YouTube/Reddit. Messaging use high across both (Messenger/Snapchat).

Behavioral trends to expect locally

• Facebook as the community hub: school sports, church updates, local news/alerts, fundraisers, obituaries; Groups/Marketplace drive daily logins.
• Video-first consumption: short-form (Reels/TikTok) cross-posted to Facebook; local sports highlights and event recaps perform well.
• Messaging > public posting for younger users: heavy use of Snapchat/IG DMs; Facebook Messenger for family/organizing.
• Trust and engagement with local sources: county/city pages, schools, churches, first responders; comments and shares spike on weather, road conditions, and school announcements.
• Strong seasonality/cultural hooks: high school football, hunting season, fairs/pageants, back-to-school; these drive spikes in photo galleries, livestreams, and event promos.
• Commerce behaviors: Marketplace for buy/sell/trade; service businesses (home/auto, healthcare, salons) rely on boosted posts and word-of-mouth tagging.
• Timing: peak engagement evenings (7–9 pm), mini-peaks around lunch; teens/college-age active after school and late evening.

How to use this

• If you’re planning outreach, prioritize Facebook + short video, layer Instagram and TikTok for under-40s, and use Messenger/SMS-style follow-ups.
• For recruitment/professional audiences, LinkedIn has presence but target selectively; consider Facebook Groups and job boards.
• Track local calendars (schools, churches, sports) to ride engagement waves.

Method note: These are directional estimates using county demographics and recent U.S./rural-South platform norms. For tighter figures, calibrate with platform ad planners (reach estimates within 20–25 miles of Collins/Mount Olive/Seminary) and local page insights.