Alleghany County

Alleghany County, North Carolina – key demographics (most recent Census/ACS)

Population size

• 11,100 (2020 Census)
• ≈11,300 (ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~50 years
• Under 18: ~19%
• 18–64: ~53%
• 65 and over: ~28%

Sex

• Female: ~50–51%
• Male: ~49–50%

Racial/ethnic composition (mutually exclusive; ACS 2018–2022)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~87%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~9%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~1%
• Non-Hispanic Asian: ~0–1%
• Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0–1%
• Non-Hispanic Two or more/Other: ~2–3%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~5,000
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~65% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~22%
• Owner-occupied share: ~78–80%

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

Alleghany County, NC — email usage snapshot (est.)

• Baseline: ~11K residents; low rural density ~45–50 people per sq. mile (mountainous terrain).
• Estimated email users: ~7.5K–8.5K adult users. Method: county adult population multiplied by typical U.S. email adoption rates, adjusted slightly downward for rural broadband access.
• Age distribution (usage rates, est.):
  • 18–29: ~90–95% use email
  • 30–49: ~92–96%
  • 50–64: ~88–92%
  • 65+: ~70–80% Because Alleghany skews older, a larger share of users are 50+ but with somewhat lower adoption than younger groups.
• Gender split: Approximately even (near 50/50 among users).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet/broadband subscription is roughly mid‑70s to low‑80s percent—below state urban averages.
  • Notable share of households rely on smartphone-only or fixed wireless/satellite in outlying areas; fiber/cable concentration is highest in and around Sparta and along main corridors.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools, town centers) helps fill gaps.
• Connectivity context: Sparse population and rugged topography contribute to patchy last‑mile coverage and slower speeds outside denser pockets.

Sources/methods: Estimates derived from ACS population structure, ACS S2801 (computer/internet), FCC broadband availability patterns, and national email adoption by age from major surveys (e.g., Pew).

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Alleghany County, NC (distinct from statewide patterns)

Quick profile and method

• Small, rural, aging county (population roughly 11–12k; high share of residents 65+). Estimates below combine census-style population structure with recent rural smartphone adoption and household internet-subscription patterns; ranges reflect uncertainty and local variation.

User estimates (people and households)

• Unique smartphone users: about 8.3–9.0k
  • Method: adults (roughly 9.0–9.5k) × rural smartphone ownership (≈82–88%) plus teens 13–17 (≈0.6–0.7k) × teen ownership (≈90–95%).
• Mobile-only home internet households: about 600–1,000
  • Method: ≈4.8–5.2k households × rural “cellular data plan only” share (≈12–20%, higher than NC’s statewide ≈8–12%).
• Active mobile lines/SIMs in use: roughly 9–11k
  • Method: unique smartphone users × 1.1–1.2 lines per user (hotspots, tablets, work lines).
• 5G device penetration: materially below the NC average
  • Expect 5G-capable handsets to lag statewide by about 10–15 percentage points due to older device mix and income/coverage constraints.

Demographic breakdown (how usage differs from the NC average)

• Age
  • Seniors (65+): larger share than state; smartphone ownership likely 60–70% (lower than statewide), with greater reliance on voice/SMS and larger fonts/accessibility settings.
  • Working-age adults (25–54): near-parity with statewide smartphone adoption (≈90–95%), but more price-sensitive plan choices.
  • Teens: high smartphone access (≈90%+), similar to statewide, but more likely to be mobile-first for entertainment and schoolwork where home broadband is weak.
• Income and plan type
  • Prepaid/MVNO usage higher than state average, reflecting budget sensitivity and coverage hedging (switching carriers or month-to-month plans).
  • Mobile-only households over-index vs state, substituting cellular for fixed broadband where fiber/cable is absent or expensive.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Latino households (a meaningful minority locally) are more likely to be smartphone-dependent for internet access than non-Hispanic white households, mirroring national trends; this increases demand for affordable unlimited data and Spanish-language support.
• Work and services
  • Work-from-home share is lower than NC average; when done, it often rides on cellular hotspots in pockets without robust fixed broadband.
  • Telehealth usage via mobile is elevated relative to similar-size urban counties because specialty care often involves travel; residents use video visits over cellular where feasible.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern
  • All three national carriers serve the county. Low-band 5G covers population centers and main corridors; mid-band 5G remains limited (primarily in/near Sparta and along highways), with many valleys and hollows reverting to LTE/VoLTE.
  • Terrain-driven shadows create dead zones off the main roads; in-vehicle and home signal boosters are more common than in flatter parts of NC.
• Capacity and speeds
  • More variability than statewide: mid-band 5G can deliver 100–300 Mbps where present, but many rural spots see LTE in the 5–30 Mbps range, with noticeable evening congestion.
  • Statewide urban/suburban areas commonly post higher, more consistent 5G speeds and capacity.
• Sites and backhaul
  • Macro towers cluster along US-21, NC-18/88, and around Sparta; small cells are rare outside town centers.
  • Backhaul is a mix of microwave and growing fiber. The regional cooperative (SkyLine/SkyBest) and other providers have expanded fiber near towns and along some rural roads, improving tower backhaul and enabling future 5G upgrades; un/underserved pockets persist.
• Public safety and resilience
  • AT&T FirstNet presence on key sites, but topography still yields coverage gaps for both public safety and consumer devices.
  • Power reliability and limited site diversity in remote areas mean extended outages can more noticeably affect service than in metro NC.

What’s notably different from North Carolina overall

• Higher share of mobile-only home internet: 12–20% locally vs about 8–12% statewide.
• Lower 5G device share and more LTE-only usage, driven by older demographics and patchier mid-band 5G.
• More prepaid/MVNO adoption and price-sensitive plans.
• Greater reliance on mobile for telehealth, navigation, and basic internet tasks where fixed options lag.
• Coverage variability is driven by mountain terrain; dead zones and indoor coverage challenges are more common than in Piedmont/Coastal metro counties.
• Peak seasonal/tourism traffic can strain capacity on weekends and along parkway/gateway routes—less of a factor in most urban NC counties.

Implications and opportunities

• Targeted mid-band 5G infill (especially along NC-18/88 corridors and valley communities) would have outsized benefit.
• Encourage device upgrade programs for seniors and low-income households to lift 5G adoption and improve emergency connectivity.
• Expand fiber backhaul to rural tower sites and pursue colocation to improve resilience.
• Maintain and advertise public Wi‑Fi at libraries, schools, and clinics as complements where mobile service dips.

Notes on uncertainty

• County-specific mobile metrics are rarely published; the figures above are reasoned estimates derived from rural NC adoption rates, Pew-style ownership trends by age, and ACS household internet-subscription patterns. Local carrier drive tests and the NC Broadband Office maps can refine these numbers.

Alleghany County, NC — social media snapshot (short)

Overall user base

• Residents: ~11.5K; adults (18+): ~9–9.5K
• Adult internet users: ~7.5–8.2K (80–86% of adults)
• Active social media users: ~6.0–6.8K (about 65–72% of adults; higher among under-55s, lower among 65+)

Age mix of adult social users (approx.)

• 18–34: ~23%
• 35–54: ~33%
• 55–64: ~20%
• 65+: ~24% Note: County skews older than NC overall, so a bigger share of users is 55+.

Gender breakdown (approx. among adult social users)

• Female: ~54–56%
• Male: ~44–46%

Most-used platforms (share of adult internet users; “~” = approximate)

• YouTube: ~75–80%
• Facebook: ~70–76%
• Facebook Messenger: ~55–60%
• Instagram: ~30–35%
• Pinterest: ~28–32%
• TikTok: ~22–28%
• Snapchat: ~18–22%
• X (Twitter): ~15–20%
• LinkedIn: ~10–14% Note: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram/TikTok under-index vs urban NC due to older age mix.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first usage: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups (community news, school sports, churches, fundraisers, buy-sell-trade/Marketplace). Local faces and names outperform generic creative.
• Practical content wins: Weather/advisories, road conditions, local events, hunting/fishing/farming tips, how-to videos on YouTube.
• Messaging as a service channel: Many residents use Messenger to contact local businesses; “Call or message us” CTAs outperform web forms.
• Lower posting, higher lurking: A smaller share creates content; many users primarily browse, share, or comment in groups.
• Time-of-day patterns: Peaks evenings (7–9 pm) and weekends; midday spikes during school/event days.
• Younger cohort pockets: Teens/under-30s gravitate to Instagram Stories/DMs, TikTok for humor and trends, and Snapchat for close-friend communication; they still keep Facebook for groups/events.
• Trust and conversion: Word-of-mouth and community validation matter; local sponsorships, church/school tie-ins, and visible owners/staff in ads build credibility. Geo-targeting tight radii (Sparta + surrounding) perform best.
• Cross-border spillover: Audience naturally overlaps with nearby VA counties; consider 15–25 mile radii for reach.

Estimation notes

• Figures triangulate US/NC platform usage (Pew Research 2024), rural vs. urban deltas, and Alleghany’s age structure from Census/ACS. Exact county-level platform stats aren’t published; treat numbers as best-fit estimates for planning.