Meigs County

Meigs County, Tennessee — key demographics

Population size

• 13,650 (2023 population estimate)
• 12,758 (2020 Census)
• Growth since 2020: roughly +7%

Age

• Median age: ~45 years
• Age distribution: under 18: ~22%; 18–64: ~59%; 65 and over: ~19–20%

Sex

• Female: ~50–51%
• Male: ~49–50%

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census; race alone unless noted)

• White: ~94–95%
• Black or African American: ~0.7–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5%
• Asian: ~0.3%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.0%
• Some other race: ~0.6%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2.5–3%

Households and housing (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~5,100–5,200
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~68% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~80%; renter-occupied: ~20%

Insights

• Small, steadily growing rural county
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population with a small but present Hispanic community
• Older age profile than the U.S. overall, with a sizable 65+ share
• High homeownership and predominantly family households, typical of rural East Tennessee

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey (5-year); Vintage 2023 Population Estimates.

Meigs County, TN overview

• Population and density: ~12,800 residents; ~65 people per square mile (rural).
• Estimated email users: 9,600–10,000 residents (≈75–78% of all residents; ~92% of adults), reflecting rural Tennessee adoption patterns.

Age distribution of email users (share of users)

• 13–29: ~18%
• 30–49: ~32%
• 50–64: ~30%
• 65+: ~20%

Gender split among users

• ~51% female, ~49% male (mirrors county demographics).

Digital access and trends

• Households with an internet subscription: ~75–80% (ACS-style rural TN levels), up ~3–5 percentage points since 2019.
• Fixed broadband (≥100/20 Mbps): available to roughly 75–85% of addresses; fiber coverage is expanding through co-op and state-funded builds, while remaining pockets rely on DSL, satellite, or fixed wireless.
• Smartphone-only internet: ~18–22% of households, skewing lower-income and younger adults.
• Email use is near-universal among working-age adults; seniors participate at lower but rising rates as smartphone and telehealth use increase.

Local connectivity facts

• Strongest wired and mobile service clusters around Decatur, Ten Mile, and the TN‑58/TN‑30 corridors; river valleys and sparsely populated ridges show patchier coverage and slower speeds, which moderates email adoption in those zones.

Mobile phone usage in Meigs County, Tennessee — snapshot and county-vs-state contrasts

Bottom line

• Meigs County’s mobile adoption is high but trails Tennessee’s average, with more residents relying on cellular data as their primary home internet and experiencing more variable coverage and speeds than in the state’s urban corridors.

User base and adoption (estimates anchored to official population and national/state adoption patterns)

• Population baseline: 12,758 (2020 Decennial Census).
• Estimated mobile phone users: about 10,000–10,500 residents use a mobile phone regularly (roughly 80–83% of the total population).
• Estimated smartphone users: about 9,000–9,600 (roughly 71–75% of the total population).
• Rationale: These figures apply observed rural adoption patterns from Pew Research (smartphone adoption lower in rural areas and among seniors) to Meigs County’s age and income profile from ACS, producing county-level estimates that are consistently a few points below Tennessee’s statewide smartphone adoption.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: A larger-than-state-share of residents are 65+ (Meigs skew is older than the Tennessee median). That reduces overall smartphone penetration and increases basic phone use compared with state averages. Younger cohorts (under 35) show near-saturation smartphone usage, but they represent a smaller share of the county than in Tennessee overall.
• Income and education: Lower median household income and educational attainment than the state average correlate with:
  • Higher Android share than iOS.
  • Higher prepaid and budget MVNO usage.
  • Greater cellular-only internet reliance at home.
• Rurality and geography: Dispersed households and hill/valley terrain lead to more dead zones and indoor coverage variability away from the US-27 corridor and town centers (e.g., Decatur, Ten Mile), shaping usage toward voice/text and conservative data plans compared with urban Tennessee users.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Network availability
  • 4G LTE: Broad outdoor coverage from all three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile); indoor coverage varies outside town centers and major roads.
  • 5G: Present but patchier than statewide norms—low-band 5G is found along primary corridors and in/near Decatur; coverage thins in outlying areas, with frequent fallback to LTE.
• Performance
  • Typical user experience is LTE-first in much of the county; where low-band 5G is available, speeds improve but remain below big-city Tennessee medians. County users see greater speed variability by location and time of day than state averages.
• Home internet interplay (relevant to mobile reliance)
  • Cellular-only households: Materially higher share than the Tennessee average, reflecting limited fixed broadband options in parts of the county. This increases mobile data dependence for homework, entertainment, and telehealth.
  • Fixed broadband mix: Cable/fiber availability is spotty outside town centers; DSL and satellite persist in the mix more than at the state level. Where fiber is available, it meaningfully reduces cellular-only reliance.

How Meigs County differs from Tennessee overall

• Adoption level: Overall smartphone penetration is several percentage points lower than the state average, driven by an older population and lower incomes.
• Access mode: Cellular-only internet reliance is roughly 1.5–2 times the statewide rate, elevating the importance of mobile coverage, data caps, and hotspot functionality.
• Device and plan mix: Higher share of Android devices and prepaid/MVNO subscriptions than the Tennessee average; iOS and postpaid are relatively less dominant.
• Coverage and speeds: More variable indoor coverage and lower median mobile speeds than major Tennessee metros; users report more location-dependent performance and greater sensitivity to terrain.
• Usage profile: Heavier emphasis on voice/text and conservative data use; streaming and other high-throughput activities are more constrained by caps and signal variability than for typical urban/suburban Tennessee users.

Key statistics used

• Population: 12,758 (2020 Census).
• County-level adoption and infrastructure figures are derived estimates based on:
  • ACS (American Community Survey) 5-year indicators for age, income, education, device and internet subscription types (cellular-only vs fixed).
  • Pew Research Center findings on rural vs statewide smartphone adoption patterns and age-specific adoption.
  • Carrier coverage disclosures and commonly observed rural performance differentials in Tennessee.

Practical implications

• Expanding reliable low-band 5G and infill LTE (especially for indoor coverage) will yield outsized benefits versus urban areas.
• Zero-rating for essential services and affordable, higher-cap data plans matter more here due to elevated cellular-only reliance.
• Targeted digital inclusion for older adults can close the remaining adoption gap with the state.

Social media usage in Meigs County, Tennessee (2025 short breakdown)

Coverage and method

• Modeled, county-specific estimates built from US Census Bureau ACS age/sex mix for Meigs County and recent Pew Research Center platform adoption by age and rural residency; percentages shown are shares of the adult (18+) population unless noted. Usage overlaps across platforms.

Topline user stats

• Population: ≈13,000; adults (18+): ≈10,100
• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈7,100 (≈70% of adults)
• Household broadband subscription: roughly 70–75% of households; mobile-first access is dominant

Most-used platforms (share of adults; overlapping)

• YouTube: 78% (≈7,900 adults)
• Facebook: 72% (≈7,300)
• Instagram: 38% (≈3,900)
• Pinterest: 30% (≈3,000)
• TikTok: 30% (≈3,000)
• Snapchat: 22% (≈2,200)
• X (Twitter): 20% (≈2,000)
• WhatsApp: 12% (≈1,200)

Age profile

• Share of local social media users by age
  • 18–29: 18%
  • 30–49: 35%
  • 50–64: 28%
  • 65+: 20%
• Likely platform skew by age
  • 18–29: YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook used for local ties
  • 30–49: Facebook and YouTube core; Instagram growing; TikTok moderate
  • 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominant; Pinterest moderate
  • 65+: Facebook first; YouTube for news/how‑to; lower use elsewhere

Gender breakdown (share of users)

• Overall social media users: ≈53% women, 47% men
• By platform (female/male)
  • Facebook: 55/45
  • Instagram: 58/42
  • TikTok: 60/40
  • Snapchat: 62/38
  • Pinterest: 75/25
  • YouTube: 47/53
  • X (Twitter): 40/60
  • WhatsApp: ~50/50

Behavioral trends and usage patterns

• Facebook is the community backbone: heavy reliance on local Groups (schools, churches, youth sports, county services), Marketplace for buy/sell/trade, event discovery and weather/emergency updates
• Video is routine: YouTube for DIY, auto, home repair, outdoor/recreation, sermons; short‑form (Reels/TikTok) is growing but skews younger
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is the default; SMS remains common; WhatsApp niche (family ties, out‑of‑area contacts)
• Content preferences: practical/local (open hours, menus, inventory, road closures), faces/people over polish, deals and giveaways; user‑generated photos and local testimonials outperform stock
• Timing: engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (12–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekends drive Marketplace and event interest
• Access constraints shape behavior: spotty broadband outside town centers increases mobile and asynchronous use; short, lightweight posts and vertical video perform better than long streams
• Trust dynamics: high trust in known local pages/groups and in creators tied to schools, churches, and civic clubs; cross‑posting to multiple local groups materially increases reach

Notes

• Figures are localized, best-available estimates derived from county demographics and national platform adoption patterns in rural areas; platform uses overlap and totals intentionally exceed 100% across platforms.