Sullivan County

Sullivan County, New Hampshire — key demographics

Population size

• 43,063 (2020 Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022)

• Median age: 46.7 years
• Under 18: 19.0%
• 18–64: 57.8%
• 65 and over: 23.2%

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Female: 50.6%
• Male: 49.4%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022)

• White alone: 94.6%
• Black or African American alone: 0.8%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 0.4%
• Asian alone: 1.0%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1%
• Two or more races: 3.2%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 2.4%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 92.8%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: 18,600
• Average household size: 2.30
• Family households: 60% (married-couple families: 47%)
• Households with children under 18: 24%
• Nonfamily households: 40%
• Living alone: 32% (65+ living alone: 13%)
• Homeownership rate: 76%

Insights

• Older age profile: nearly one in four residents are 65+
• Predominantly White non-Hispanic population with modest racial/ethnic diversity
• Small household sizes and high homeownership consistent with rural New England patterns

Sullivan County, NH (2020 pop. 43,063) has an estimated 32,500 adult email users (18+), computed by applying national email‑adoption rates to the county’s age mix. Users by age: 18–34 ≈20%, 35–64 ≈52%, 65+ ≈28%. Gender split is effectively even (≈50% female, 50% male), with no meaningful usage gap.

Digital access and connectivity

• Households with a broadband subscription: ≈86%; households with a computer: ≈90%.
• Email reach is near‑universal among working‑age adults; penetration tapers modestly among 65+.
• Network availability is strongest along the Claremont–Newport corridor (cable/fiber), while outer rural towns still rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite; fiber buildouts via recent state/federal programs are shrinking these gaps.
• Population density is low at roughly 80 residents per square mile, increasing last‑mile costs and contributing to uneven service.

Bottom line: expect reliable email reach of roughly 9 in 10 adults countywide, with slightly lower coverage in the oldest cohort and in the most rural addresses.

Mobile phone usage in Sullivan County, New Hampshire — 2024 snapshot

Overall size of the mobile user base

• Residents: ~43,000 (2023–2024 estimate)
• Adults (18+): ~35,000–36,000
• Estimated active smartphone users (all ages): 34,000–37,000
• Estimated basic/feature‑phone users: 2,500–3,500 (roughly 6–8% of residents)
• Household smartphone‑only internet dependence (no home wireline broadband): estimated 17–22% in the county, higher than the statewide share (roughly 12–15%), reflecting older housing stock, rural topography, and lower median incomes than the NH average

How Sullivan County differs from the state

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration than the New Hampshire average, driven by an older age structure and more rural settlement patterns
• Higher reliance on smartphones as the primary internet connection (smartphone‑only households), particularly outside Claremont–Newport and in lake/mountain towns
• More prepaid/MVNO use (estimated 25–30% of lines vs. ~18–22% statewide), tied to price sensitivity and patchy mid‑band 5G availability
• Device mix tilts a bit more toward Android than the state average; iOS share likely around the low‑to‑mid 50s in the county versus the low‑to‑mid 60s statewide

Demographic breakdown of mobile adoption and use

• Age
  • 18–49: near‑universal smartphone adoption (>95%); heavy app/social/video use similar to the state
  • 50–64: high adoption (roughly upper‑80s to low‑90s percent), but more voice/SMS and pragmatic apps (banking, navigation, health portals)
  • 65+: adoption trails the state by several points; more basic phones remain in use and more limited app ecosystems; higher use of large‑button devices and medical/alert peripherals
• Income and education
  • Lower‑income households more likely to be smartphone‑only for internet and to use prepaid plans or budget MVNOs (e.g., Straight Talk, Metro by T‑Mobile, Cricket)
  • Households with students increasingly rely on mobile hotspots to supplement DSL or satellite connections in fringe areas
• Geography within the county
  • Claremont and Newport: highest concentration of mid‑band 5G and better in‑building coverage; users show plan tiers and devices similar to statewide patterns
  • Lake Sunapee/seasonal towns: seasonal spikes in usage produce congestion; more signal boosters and Wi‑Fi calling reliance in homes and inns
  • Rural hill and river‑valley towns: more coverage shadowing; greater dependence on Wi‑Fi calling, external antennas, and carriers with better low‑band spectrum

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE is effectively universal in population centers and along main corridors; fringe and interior forested areas still experience weak indoor signal
  • 5G low‑band spans most places where LTE exists; mid‑band 5G (C‑band/2.5 GHz) is spotty and concentrated near larger towns and along the I‑89 edge of the county, trailing statewide depth and density
• Capacity and speeds
  • Median mobile download performance in the county trails statewide medians, reflecting fewer sectors per site, more terrain shadowing, and smaller cell density; speeds are markedly better near town centers than in valleys and around lake basins
  • Peak‑season congestion around recreation hubs (Sunapee area, ski and lake traffic) reduces afternoon/evening performance relative to shoulder seasons
• Sites and backhaul
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than the NH average; mountainous terrain increases the need for densification and small‑cell fill‑ins that have not rolled out as quickly as in more urban NH
  • Backhaul upgrades lag outside Claremont–Newport, limiting realized 5G capacity even where radios are present
• Carrier landscape
  • All three national MNOs operate; coverage leadership varies block‑to‑block due to terrain
  • MVNO penetration is higher than statewide norms; price‑sensitive users often trade premium mid‑band performance for lower cost
• Reliability and public safety
  • E911 location and Wireless Emergency Alerts are broadly available; first‑responder coverage remains stronger in towns than in remote recreation areas, where agencies rely on dedicated LMR networks supplemented by cellular

Behavioral usage notes

• Higher share of households using mobile hotspots to supplement or replace slow DSL/satellite
• Greater reliance on Wi‑Fi calling indoors in rural homes and older buildings with metal or dense construction
• Seniors increasingly adopt smartphones for telehealth and pharmacy apps, but at lower rates than the state average; training and digital‑literacy programs materially affect uptake

Implications and actionable insights

• Network priorities that will most reduce the county–state gap: add mid‑band 5G sectors in Claremont–Newport corridors, infill along major commuting and recreation routes, and upgrade backhaul to unlock existing spectrum
• Public programs that move the needle: device subsidies or starter plans paired with training for older adults; promotion of managed signal boosters in public buildings; targeted support for smartphone‑only households with students

Notes on methodology

• User counts are derived by applying recent national and New England adoption rates to current county population and age structure, adjusted for rural income and infrastructure patterns observed in ACS “Computer and Internet Use,” FCC mobile coverage data, and Pew Research on device ownership. Ranges reflect realistic bounds given 2023–2024 conditions.

Sullivan County, NH — Social media snapshot (2025)

Population baseline

• Total population: ~43,100
• Adults (18+): ~34,900 (≈81% of population)
• Gender: ~51% women, ~49% men
• Median age skews older than U.S. average, so usage leans toward Facebook and YouTube over newer apps

Most‑used platforms (adult reach; local estimates by applying Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. usage rates to the county’s adult population)

• YouTube: 83% (29.0k adults)
• Facebook: 68% (23.7k)
• Instagram: 50% (17.5k)
• TikTok: 33% (11.5k)
• Snapchat: 30% (10.5k)
• Pinterest: 30% (10.5k)
• LinkedIn: 30% (10.5k)
• WhatsApp: 29% (10.1k)
• X (Twitter): 22% (7.7k)
• Reddit: 22% (7.7k)
• Nextdoor: 19% (6.6k)

Age patterns (who uses what)

• Teens (13–17): Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram dominant; minimal Facebook posting (parents/teams/schools still pull them onto Facebook for info)
• 18–29: Heavy YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook used for events, groups, and Marketplace
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram growing; LinkedIn for professionals; WhatsApp used among service/healthcare/hospitality workers
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube are primary; Pinterest strong (DIY, recipes, home projects)
• 65+: Facebook first, YouTube second; lighter use of other platforms; Nextdoor presence where available

Gender breakdown

• Overall social audience: roughly mirrors population (~51% women, ~49% men)
• Platform skews:
  • More women: Pinterest (strong), Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight)
  • More men: Reddit, X (Twitter), LinkedIn (moderate)
  • Balanced: YouTube, WhatsApp, TikTok varies by age

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups are central for town alerts, school closings, road conditions, local governance, and buy/sell/trade; engagement spikes on posts naming specific towns, roads, or businesses
• Marketplace culture: High reliance on Facebook Marketplace for vehicles, tools, outdoor gear, furniture, and seasonal equipment
• Event and seasonality: Peaks around storms, foliage season, lake/ski weekends, fairs; short-form videos of weather, trail conditions, and high school sports perform well
• Practical video consumption: YouTube heavily used for DIY/home repair, outdoor recreation tips, automotive fixes, and appliance maintenance
• Visual discovery: Pinterest (and Instagram) drive interest in home improvement, crafts, gardening, and local décor/renovation ideas
• Youth communication: Snapchat/TikTok for daily messaging and short-form entertainment; Instagram for sports teams, local eateries, and event highlights
• Trust and reach: Word‑of‑mouth amplified by local pages; short, plain-language posts with photos outperform long text; early morning and evening posting windows see highest activity

Method note

• Demographics from U.S. Census Bureau (ACS/Census). Platform reach percentages from Pew Research Center (2024) applied to the county’s adult population to produce local user estimates. Actual local adoption will skew slightly toward Facebook/YouTube given the county’s older age profile.