Giles County

Key demographics for Giles County, Tennessee (most recent U.S. Census/ACS):

• Population size

  • 30,346 (2020 Census)

• Age

  • Median age: ~43 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 65 and over: ~21%

• Gender

  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%

• Race/ethnicity (of total population)

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~81%
  • Black or African American: ~12%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~4–5%
  • Two or more races: ~2%
  • Asian: ~0.3–0.5%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.3%

• Households

  • Total households: ~11,800
  • Average household size: ~2.45
  • Family households: ~65% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~74%

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

Here’s a concise, data‑informed snapshot for Giles County, TN (population roughly 30–31k):

• Estimated email users: 23–25k residents. Based on age-structured adoption rates from national research (email is near‑universal among adults; slightly lower among seniors and teens).
• By age (approximate users):
  • 13–17: ~1.4–1.6k
  • 18–29: ~3.7–4.0k
  • 30–49: ~7.0–7.5k
  • 50–64: ~5.5–6.0k
  • 65+: ~5.0–5.7k (lower daily use than younger groups)
• Gender split among users: roughly even (county population is near 50/50; email adoption differences by gender are minimal).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription estimated ~75–80% (typical for rural TN counties).
  • Computer access ~80–85%; smartphone ownership high, with ~10–15% likely smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Public access points (libraries, schools) supplement connectivity for some households.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Low population density (~50 people per square mile across ~610 sq mi) increases last‑mile costs and contributes to patchy fixed broadband.
  • Coverage is a mix of fiber in/near towns, plus cable/DSL and fixed wireless in rural areas; state/federal buildouts are expanding fiber into underserved pockets.

Figures are estimates synthesized from Census/ACS patterns and national tech-use research.

Below is a practical, data-informed snapshot of mobile phone usage in Giles County, Tennessee, with estimates, demographic context, and infrastructure notes. Figures are approximations based on county population, rural adoption patterns, Pew Research smartphone ownership benchmarks (2023–2024), FCC coverage maps, and Tennessee broadband program materials.

Quick context

• County profile: Predominantly rural; county seat Pulaski; population roughly 30–31k. Older-than-state median age and lower median household income than the Tennessee average.
• Implication: Slightly lower smartphone ownership than the state overall, but higher reliance on mobile service for everyday internet where home broadband is limited.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude)

• Total residents who personally use a mobile phone: about 23,000–25,000 (roughly 75–82% of all residents).
• Smartphone users: about 20,000–22,500 (roughly 65–73% of all residents; about 85–90% of mobile phone users).
• Households that are “smartphone-only” (no home broadband): meaningfully higher than the statewide rate, driven by rural gaps in cable/fiber. Expect a noticeable share of low- and moderate-income households to rely on mobile hotspots or phone tethering.

Demographic patterns (what stands out locally)

• Age:
  • 18–49: Near‑universal smartphone use; app- and social-first behaviors similar to statewide norms.
  • 50–64: High ownership but more mixed device longevity and plan conservatism (e.g., staying on LTE, delaying upgrades).
  • 65+: Ownership materially lower than state average; more basic phones and shared-family plans; larger share using phones primarily for voice/text. This age structure pulls the county’s overall smartphone rate slightly below the Tennessee average.
• Income and plan type:
  • Lower-income residents are more likely to be smartphone‑only for home internet, to use prepaid/MVNO plans, and to seek low-cost unlimited data tiers. Prepaid share is likely above the statewide average.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Usage gaps by race are narrower than gaps by age/income. Mobile-first internet use is common across groups where home broadband is limited.
• Work/commute:
  • Commuters on US‑64 and I‑65 corridors experience stronger and more consistent 4G/5G service; off-corridor residents report variable indoor coverage and speed.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage and technology mix:
  • AT&T and Verizon provide the most consistent low-band 5G and LTE coverage countywide; T‑Mobile’s mid‑band 5G is strongest in/around Pulaski and along major corridors, with pockets of LTE/extended 5G elsewhere.
  • 5G mid‑band performance is concentrated near town centers and highways (Pulaski, US‑64, I‑65). Outside those areas, many users see LTE or low‑band 5G with lower throughput and higher latency.
  • mmWave 5G is negligible.
• Fixed wireless/home internet:
  • 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) from T‑Mobile or Verizon is available in/near Pulaski and some corridor-adjacent neighborhoods; availability drops off in outlying areas.
• Fiber and cable:
  • Pulaski has strong wired options compared with the rest of the county, including municipal fiber via Pulaski Electric System (PES/Energize). Outside town, fiber and cable footprints are spotty, and AT&T Fiber presence is limited; Charter/Spectrum reaches some denser pockets but not most rural roads.
• Backhaul and terrain:
  • Highway corridors benefit from better fiber backhaul and newer radios; valleys and wooded areas away from corridors are more prone to weak indoor signals, dropped calls, and data rate variability. Signal boosters and Wi‑Fi calling are common workarounds in those zones.
• Public connectivity:
  • Schools and the public library system play a larger role in providing reliable Wi‑Fi for students and job seekers, especially where home broadband is absent.
• Affordability programs:
  • The end of new ACP funding in 2024–2025 disproportionately affects rural, lower-income households; some users have shifted from discounted home broadband to prepaid mobile or FWA, increasing mobile network load in evenings.

How Giles County differs from Tennessee overall

• Slightly lower smartphone ownership rate due to older age profile and rural coverage gaps; but higher dependence on mobile service as the primary internet connection in many households.
• Higher prevalence of prepaid/MVNO plans and older devices; slower upgrade cycles than metro Tennessee.
• Lower availability of mid‑band 5G outside town centers; median mobile speeds trail state averages observed in Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Memphis metros.
• Greater use of Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters to address indoor coverage limitations.
• More variable FWA availability and performance; wired options are strong in Pulaski proper but thin across much of the county.

Method and confidence notes

• Estimates triangulated from county population, rural smartphone ownership rates from Pew Research (2023–2024), FCC/National Broadband Map coverage patterns, carrier maps (2024), and known local providers (e.g., PES fiber in Pulaski). Figures are directional and best used for planning and outreach rather than precise forecasting. For a project or grant application, validate with current FCC fabric, state Office of Broadband datasets, and carrier engineering maps.

Giles County, TN social media snapshot (2025, best-available estimates)

Population baseline

• Residents: ~31,000; adults (18+): ~24,000.
• Estimated internet users: 75–85% of adults (~18,000–20,000).
• Estimated social media users: 70–75% of adults plus teens ≈ 19,000–22,000 total users.

Most‑used platforms (share of local social media users)

• YouTube: ~75–85% (very broad across ages; lots of how‑to, news, and entertainment).
• Facebook: ~60–70% (dominant for community info, groups, Marketplace).
• Instagram: ~35–45% (skews under 45; Reels growth).
• TikTok: ~25–35% (strong under 35; local events, humor, sports).
• Snapchat: ~20–30% (mostly teens/young adults).
• Pinterest: ~25–35% overall; 45–55% among women (home, crafts, recipes).
• X/Twitter: ~15–20% (news/sports niche).
• LinkedIn: ~15–20% (lower due to local industry mix).
• Reddit: ~10–15% overall (higher among men 18–34).
• Nextdoor: single‑digits to low‑teens (some neighborhood use; Facebook Groups still bigger).

Age patterns

• Teens (13–17): Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; Instagram secondary; minimal Facebook posting (but many have accounts).
• 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat heavy; YouTube near‑universal; Facebook mainly for groups/events.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube core; Instagram common; TikTok/Reels rising; Messenger for coordination.
• 50–64: Facebook strongest; YouTube for long‑form/how‑to; moderate Pinterest; limited TikTok/Instagram.
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube lead; light use of other platforms.

Gender tendencies

• Women: More active on Facebook (including Groups/Marketplace), Instagram, and especially Pinterest (roughly half of women vs ~1 in 5 men).
• Men: Higher on YouTube, Reddit, X/Twitter; strong interest in sports, outdoors, automotive content.
• Overall user base likely slightly majority female (consistent with county demographics and platform skews).

Behavioral trends to note

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups for local news, school and church updates, youth sports, road/weather alerts; Marketplace and “buy/sell/trade” groups are very active.
• Video everywhere: Short‑form (Reels/TikTok) for discovery; YouTube for how‑to, hunting/fishing, DIY, small engine/auto repair, and streaming on smart TVs.
• Event discovery: Facebook Events and shared flyers are primary; cross‑posting Reels boosts reach.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default DM; Snapchat for teens; limited WhatsApp.
• Engagement timing: Evenings (7–10 pm CT) and weekend mornings tend to perform best; spikes around school sports, festivals, and severe weather.
• Trust dynamics: High engagement with known local pages/people; rumor control and clear sourcing help performance for civic/org accounts.

Notes on methodology

• Percentages draw from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media data, adjusted for a rural/older-leaning county profile, plus typical platform ad‑audience ranges. Exact county‑level platform stats aren’t publicly published; figures are modeled estimates intended for planning. For campaign targeting, validate with platform ad tools (geo set to Giles County) and your own page insights.