Johnson County

Johnson County, Tennessee — Key demographics (Census/ACS)

Population

• 2023 population estimate: ~18,700
• 2020 Census count: 17,948

Age

• Median age: ~45 years
• Under 18: ~17%
• 18 to 64: ~59%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Sex

• Male: ~55–56%
• Female: ~44–45% Note: The county’s male share is elevated due to the Northeast Correctional Complex (state prison) increasing the institutionalized male population.

Race and ethnicity (alone or in combination; Hispanic is an ethnicity)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~89%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~6%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.4%
• Asian: ~0.3%

Households

• Households: ~7,200
• Average household size: ~2.2–2.3 persons
• Family households: ~68% of households
• Married-couple families: ~50–52% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~22–23%
• Households with someone 65+ living alone: ~14–16%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–80%

Insights

• Older age structure with about one-quarter of residents 65+, typical of rural Appalachia.
• Institutional population notably skews the sex ratio toward male.
• Small household sizes and high owner-occupancy reflect an aging, largely family-based housing stock.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau — 2023 Population Estimates Program (PEP) and 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Johnson County, Tennessee email landscape (estimates)

• Population baseline: ~18,000 residents; low rural density ~59 people/sq mi across mountainous terrain.
• Estimated adult email users: ~12,900 (≈90% of adults; ≈72% of total population).
• Age distribution of email users
  • 18–34: ~3,100 (≈24%)
  • 35–64: ~6,400 (≈50%)
  • 65+: ~3,500 (≈27%)
• Gender split of email users: 50.5% female (6,500) and 49.5% male (6,400), mirroring the county’s population balance.
• Digital access and trends
  • Household broadband subscription is roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of households; smartphone‑only internet access around one‑fifth of households, higher in remote areas.
  • Fixed broadband availability is clustered around Mountain City and primary corridors; many outlying hollows rely on DSL, wireless ISPs, or mobile data.
  • LTE/5G coverage is strongest along state highways; terrain drives signal gaps and higher last‑mile costs, slowing fiber buildout.
  • Public Wi‑Fi via schools and the public library system remains an important access point. Insights: Email adoption is mature among working‑age residents and solid among seniors, but overall usage is capped by uneven home broadband and reliance on mobile‑only access; continued fiber/5G expansion should lift engagement, especially outside Mountain City.

Johnson County, Tennessee: mobile usage, demographics, and infrastructure (latest available federal datasets, primarily ACS 2018–2022 5‑year S2801; FCC National Broadband Map 2023–2024; state summaries)

User base and usage estimates

• Smartphone access (household level): 81% of Johnson County households have a smartphone, versus roughly 90% statewide. Cellular data plan subscriptions are 74% of households, versus about 84% statewide.
• Internet connectivity mix (household level): 72% of households have broadband of any type (fixed or cellular), versus about 84% statewide. 18% of households report no internet subscription at all (TN ≈ 11%). Smartphone‑only (cellular data without a fixed home connection) is about 14% of households (TN ≈ 9%).
• Adult user estimate: Applying county adoption to the 2020 population base, Johnson County supports on the order of 12,000–13,000 adult smartphone users and roughly 15,000–16,000 total mobile phone users (smartphones plus basic phones), reflecting lower penetration and an older age structure than the state average.

Demographic patterns behind usage

• Older population: About one-quarter of residents are 65+, materially higher than Tennessee overall. Among households with a householder aged 65+, only about 61% have broadband service, versus roughly 75% statewide. This age tilt dampens smartphone and app‑centric usage and raises the share of voice‑/text‑first users.
• Income and affordability: Broadband adoption among households under $20,000 annual income is about 49% in the county (TN ≈ 63%). This drives a higher reliance on prepaid plans and smartphone‑only connectivity to manage costs.
• Education and rurality: Lower college‑attainment and dispersed settlement patterns correlate with lower fixed broadband uptake and more dependence on cellular data for everyday access.
• Racial/ethnic mix: The county is predominantly White non‑Hispanic. Because statewide adoption gaps by race are less applicable here, the primary demographic drivers of lower adoption are age and income rather than race.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Mobile networks present: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon operate in the county; Dish’s 5G footprint is limited. AT&T FirstNet Band 14 is present on key sites along main corridors.
• 5G footprint: 5G is available in and around Mountain City and along primary corridors (US‑421/TN‑67), but with notable gaps in valleys and less‑traveled areas. Verizon’s coverage is more LTE‑heavy with selective DSS 5G; T‑Mobile’s 5G tends to follow highways and ridge‑line sites; AT&T 5G is present but not ubiquitous.
• Un/underserved locations: Approximately one‑third of serviceable locations are unserved or underserved by fixed broadband (below 100/20 Mbps) on the FCC National Broadband Map, versus low‑teens statewide. This elevates the role of mobile data for home access relative to the state.
• Terrain constraints: Mountainous topography and narrow valleys produce shadowing and dead zones away from highways and town centers, increasing variance in signal quality and reducing indoor coverage reliability. Macro towers cluster along transportation corridors and ridge lines; coverage depth falls off quickly off‑corridor.
• Public access points: County library and school facilities provide important supplemental Wi‑Fi access relative to the state average because of higher household offline rates.

What’s different from Tennessee overall

• Adoption deficit: Johnson County trails Tennessee by roughly 8–12 percentage points on household smartphone, cellular‑data, and broadband adoption, and has a significantly higher share of households with no internet at all.
• Smartphone‑only reliance: A larger slice of households rely on smartphones as their primary or only internet connection, reflecting both affordability constraints and patchy fixed broadband.
• Age‑driven usage patterns: The county’s older age profile materially suppresses app‑ and video‑heavy usage and increases the persistence of voice/SMS‑first behavior compared with the state.
• Coverage variability: 5G availability and indoor reliability are more uneven due to terrain and sparser site density, creating larger gaps between “on‑corridor” and “off‑corridor” user experiences than seen statewide.
• Investment priority: With a higher proportion of un/underserved locations, the county ranks above the state average in eligibility for federal/state broadband programs, making mobile and fixed‑wireless upgrades more impactful locally.

Bottom line Johnson County’s mobile landscape is defined by solid corridor coverage but sizable rural gaps, lower household smartphone and broadband adoption than the Tennessee average, a higher share of smartphone‑only households, and pronounced age‑ and income‑based disparities. These factors make improvements to both macro coverage and affordable plans (including fixed‑wireless/home 5G where feasible) disproportionately valuable relative to statewide norms.

Johnson County, TN social media snapshot (2025)

User base

• Estimated social media users: ~12,000 residents (≈67% of total population; ≈79% of residents age 13+)
• Primary access: mobile-first; smartphone-dependent households are common in rural East Tennessee, so most usage is via cellular data rather than home broadband

Age mix of social media users

• 13–17: 8% (~1,000)
• 18–29: 16% (~1,900)
• 30–49: 34% (~4,100)
• 50–64: 24% (~2,900)
• 65+: 18% (~2,100)

Gender breakdown of users

• Female: 52% (~6,240)
• Male: 48% (~5,760)

Most-used platforms in the county (share of social media users who use each platform at least monthly)

• YouTube: 84%
• Facebook: 76%
• Instagram: 34%
• Pinterest: 30%
• TikTok: 27%
• Snapchat: 23%
• WhatsApp: 12%
• X (Twitter): 12%
• LinkedIn: 10%
• Reddit: 9%

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the local public square: heavy reliance on Groups for school sports, yard sales/buy–sell–trade, church and community events, and weather/road alerts; Marketplace is a key channel for local commerce and secondhand goods
• Video dominates consumption: YouTube leads for how‑to, home/auto repair, DIY, hunting/fishing, and local music; many churches stream services to YouTube and Facebook
• Short‑form video is growing but skewed young: TikTok and Instagram Reels see the most activity among 13–34; creation lags consumption, with most users watching more than posting
• Messaging over posting: Facebook Messenger is the default for local 1:1 and group communication; Snapchat is common among teens and college‑age users
• Older users are highly active: Facebook usage is strongest among 35+; 50+ cohorts drive a large share of Group engagement and local news sharing
• Commerce and local discovery: residents often “shop” via Facebook Marketplace before visiting regional retailers; local boutiques, craftsmen, and service businesses lean on Facebook and Instagram for reach
• Peak usage times: evening hours (roughly 7–10 p.m.) and early mornings for news and weather; weekend activity spikes around community events and sports
• Content tone: practical and community‑oriented; posts about schools, road conditions, lost/found pets, and fundraisers travel farther than national‑topic debates

Method and sources

• Figures are modeled for Johnson County using 2023–2025 data from the U.S. Census Bureau (ACS) for population and age structure, plus Pew Research Center and other national studies on platform adoption by age, rural residency, and gender. Platform shares are adjusted to reflect rural/older‑skewing usage patterns typical of Northeast Tennessee.