Winston County

Winston County, Mississippi — Key demographics

Population

• 17,714 residents (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~41 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18–24: ~9%
• 25–44: ~24%
• 45–64: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~19% (ACS 2018–2022)

Gender

• Female: ~51–52%
• Male: ~48–49% (ACS 2018–2022)

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; race alone; Hispanic is of any race)

• White: ~49%
• Black or African American: ~47%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0–1%
• Asian: ~0–1%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~6,900
• Persons per household: ~2.5–2.6
• Family households: ~65%
• Married-couple households: ~40–45%
• Nonfamily households: ~35%
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~75%

Insights

• Population is small and aging, with roughly one in five residents 65+
• Racial composition is roughly split between White and Black populations, with a small but growing Hispanic share
• Household size is modest and homeownership is relatively high for a rural county

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

Winston County, MS (population roughly 18,000) is a low‑density, rural county, which shapes internet and email adoption. Using 2020 Census/ACS baselines and Pew’s adult email adoption rates:

• Estimated email users: 8,500–10,500 residents (primarily adults), reflecting local internet adoption and near‑universal email use among connected adults.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 18–29: ~15–18%; 30–49: ~32–36%; 50–64: ~24–28%; 65+: ~18–22%. Younger adults are almost universally on email; usage tapers modestly for 65+ due to lower connectivity.
• Gender split: approximately even; female share of users ~50–52%, tracking the county’s population mix.

Digital access trends and local context:

• About two‑thirds of households subscribe to home broadband, with the remainder relying on mobile data or having no subscription; smartphone‑only access likely around one‑fifth of adults, consistent with rural Mississippi patterns.
• Connectivity is strongest in and around Louisville (the county seat) and weaker in outlying areas, reflecting the county’s low population density and longer last‑mile runs.
• Public institutions (schools, libraries, municipal Wi‑Fi) serve as important access points for residents without reliable home broadband, supporting email use for services, jobs, and education.

Winston County, MS — Mobile phone usage snapshot (2024)

Population and demographics (definitive context)

• Population: ~17,700 (county seat: Louisville); ~6,800 households
• Age: older than state average; ~19% age 65+ (MS ~16%)
• Race/ethnicity: roughly mid-50s% White, mid-40s% Black/African American, ~2% other/Hispanic
• Income: lower than state median; a higher share of low‑to‑moderate income households than MS overall

User estimates and penetration

• Adult smartphone users: 11,000–12,000 (roughly 82–86% of the ~13,500 adults), reflecting slightly lower uptake than statewide due to age and income mix
• Mobile‑only internet households (no fixed home broadband, rely on cellular): ~1,200–1,600 households (18–24% of all households), materially higher than the Mississippi average
• Prepaid plans: measurably higher share than statewide, aligned with income mix and mobile‑only reliance
• Device turnover: slower than state average; above‑average share of older handsets in use, which affects 5G performance benefits

Demographic usage patterns (estimated)

• Ages 18–34: 95–97% smartphone penetration; heavy app‑centric use, high adoption of mobile payments and social video
• Ages 35–64: ~90% penetration; strong work‑related use (messaging, navigation, field apps), rising use of mobile hotspotting for remote work
• Ages 65+: ~70–75% penetration; above‑average retention of basic/feature phones vs state, but steady migration to smartphones for telehealth and banking
• Lower‑income households: substantially higher mobile‑only rates (approx. 30%+ among households under ~$35k), higher prevalence of prepaid and data‑capped plans

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage: 4G LTE is broadly available along major corridors (US‑25, MS‑14, MS‑15) and in Louisville; pockets of weak or unreliable signal persist in heavily wooded and sparsely populated areas, especially away from highways
• 5G: Predominantly low‑band coverage from the national carriers; mid‑band 5G nodes are limited and concentrated in/near Louisville and primary corridors. Practical user speeds often dictated by 4G or low‑band 5G outside town
• Speeds (user‑level outcomes): typical outdoor downloads ~20–80 Mbps countywide, lower indoors in fringe areas; peak speeds higher near town where mid‑band 5G is present, but these zones are limited
• Backhaul: Fiber backbones reach key community anchors (schools, hospital, government). Outside Louisville, more reliance on microwave backhaul and longer fiber laterals, which can constrain sector capacity at busy times
• Public safety: AT&T FirstNet Band 14 coverage present on primary sites; generally robust around Louisville and highways, with rural gaps similar to commercial LTE
• Resiliency: Storm‑related power outages and tornado risk can impact uptime; macro sites serving highways typically have generators, whereas some rural sites rely on shorter‑duration battery backup
• Fixed broadband context: Cable/fiber available in and immediately around Louisville; many outlying areas lack wireline broadband, driving above‑average reliance on mobile and fixed‑wireless access

How Winston County differs from Mississippi overall

• Higher mobile‑only dependence: A meaningfully larger share of households rely on cellular for primary internet access than the state average
• Lower 5G depth: Less mid‑band 5G density than seen in larger MS metros; users more often fall back to LTE/low‑band 5G, especially indoors and off‑corridor
• Older user base: Lower smartphone adoption among seniors and slower device refresh contribute to more conservative usage patterns and lower realized speeds
• Plan mix: Higher prevalence of prepaid and budget plans than the statewide mix
• Coverage variability: Greater incidence of dead zones or marginal indoor coverage away from Louisville, tied to terrain, timber canopy, and tower spacing

Implications and actionable insights

• Capacity hot spots: School zones, healthcare facilities, industrial sites near Louisville, and US‑25 corridors see peak‑time congestion; additional mid‑band sectors or carrier aggregation would yield outsized benefits
• Rural service gaps: Small infill sites or repeaters near wooded clusters and low‑lying areas would materially improve indoor reliability
• Digital equity: Programs that pair affordable plans with modern devices (VoLTE/5G‑capable) will close a notable portion of the performance gap
• Fixed‑wireless opportunity: Where cable/fiber is absent, 5G fixed‑wireless can serve 35–45% of addresses near corridors; deeper rural footprints will remain capacity‑limited without more mid‑band spectrum or new sites

Method notes

• Population and household counts: U.S. Census/ACS recent estimates
• Adoption and mobile‑only rates: derived from Pew Research smartphone adoption, rural‑South adjustments, and ACS computer/Internet indicators for similar rural MS counties
• Network characterizations: synthesis of carrier build‑outs in east‑central MS, FirstNet Band 14 deployments, and rural performance patterns observed statewide

Overall: Winston County is more mobile‑dependent than Mississippi as a whole, with solid corridor coverage but thinner mid‑band 5G and more pronounced rural gaps. Targeted capacity and in‑building coverage improvements, plus device modernization among seniors and low‑income users, would narrow the county’s mobile experience gap with the rest of the state.

Social media usage in Winston County, Mississippi (2025 snapshot)

Overview and user base

• Population base: ≈17.7K residents.
• Active social media users:
  • Residents 13+: ≈80% use at least one platform monthly (≈12K people).
  • Adults 18+: ≈78% use at least one platform monthly (≈10.5–11K people).
• Access and devices:
  • Internet access is predominantly mobile; 70–75% of households have home internet, with a sizable smartphone‑only segment (~20–25% of households).
  • Usage is overwhelmingly on smartphones (>90% of social activity).

Age groups (share using at least one social platform, monthly; platform skews)

• Teens (13–17): 92–95% use social; heavy on YouTube (≈90%), TikTok (≈70–75%), Snapchat (≈65–70%), Instagram (≈60–65%), Facebook (≈30–40%).
• Young adults (18–34): 90%+ use social; YouTube (≈90%), Instagram (≈70–75%), Facebook (≈65–70%), TikTok (≈50–60%).
• Mid-life (35–54): ≈85% use social; Facebook (≈80% of this group), YouTube (≈75–80%), Instagram (≈35–45%), TikTok (≈20–30%).
• Older adults (55–64): ≈70% use social; Facebook (≈75–80%), YouTube (≈65–70%), Instagram (≈20–30%), TikTok (≈10–20%).
• Seniors (65+): ≈55–60% use social; Facebook (≈60–70%), YouTube (≈50–60%); other platforms <15%.

Gender breakdown

• Overall users: roughly 52% women, 48% men (mirrors county demographics).
• Platform tendencies:
  • Women: higher participation in Facebook (including Groups and Marketplace) and Instagram.
  • Men: higher participation in YouTube, sports/outdoors pages, and X (Twitter).
  • Messaging: Facebook Messenger is widely used across genders; WhatsApp adoption is modest.

Most‑used platforms (share of local social media users, monthly; rank-ordered)

• Facebook: 70–75% (55–60% daily). Dominant for local news, community groups, churches, schools, Marketplace.
• YouTube: 78–82% (50–55% daily). Primary for video, how‑tos, sports replays, sermon streams.
• Instagram: 35–40% overall; 65–75% among 18–34.
• TikTok: 28–35% overall; 55–65% among 13–24.
• Snapchat: 20–25% overall; 50–60% among teens.
• X (Twitter): 12–18% (local sports, weather, state news).
• WhatsApp: 12–18% (family/messaging pockets).
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (limited white‑collar base).
• Nextdoor: 2–4% (most “neighborhood” chatter happens in Facebook Groups).
• Facebook Messenger: 65–70% (primary local DMs).

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Hyperlocal orientation: High reliance on Facebook Groups for community updates, church announcements, school activities, and high‑school sports. Local government, utilities, and school district pages drive spikes during announcements or outages.
• Weather‑driven surges: Severe weather and tornado alerts generate rapid engagement across Facebook and X; short video updates and live streams perform best during events.
• Social commerce: Facebook Marketplace and buy/sell/trade groups are the default for classifieds (vehicles, equipment, household goods). Direct messages and cash/on‑pickup norms remain strong.
• Content formats: Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok) and short clips on Facebook perform better than long text posts; YouTube serves longer how‑to, hunting/fishing, and church content. Live video (games, services, civic events) pulls above‑average watch time.
• Timing: Engagement peaks before work (6–8 a.m.), lunch (11:30 a.m.–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.). Sunday afternoon is consistently strong for community and church content.
• Trust and voices: Local “micro‑influencers” (pastors, coaches, school staff, small business owners) carry more weight than statewide or national accounts. Posts with named local people and recognizable places outperform generic creative.
• Discovery and messaging: Many residents discover businesses via Facebook recommendations and Groups, then convert via Messenger or phone. Click‑through to websites is secondary; ensure phone/email/Messenger are prominent.
• Demographic nuances:
  • 35+ leans heavily into Facebook for news and events; 18–34 splits time across Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.
  • Women drive community group activity and Marketplace; men over‑index in sports/outdoors and equipment trading groups.
  • Seniors are reachable mainly via Facebook pages/groups and YouTube; simple creative and clear calls to call/visit perform best.

Notes on figures

• Percentages reflect best‑available local estimates derived from Mississippi/rural benchmarks, 2023–2024 national platform usage patterns (Pew and similar studies), and the county’s age/gender mix. Exact platform shares are rarely published at the county level, but the relative ranking and skews above align with observed behavior in rural Mississippi counties of similar size and demographics.