Perry County

Perry County, Tennessee — Key Demographics

• Population size:

  • 8,091 (2020 Census)
  • 8,200 (2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimate)

• Age:

  • Median age: 47.6 years (ACS 2019–2023)
  • Under 18: 19%
  • 65 and over: 22%

• Gender:

  • Male: 50.2%
  • Female: 49.8%

• Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023):

  • White (non-Hispanic): 91.9%
  • Black or African American (non-Hispanic): 2.5%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): 2.7%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): 2.5%
  • Other races each <0.5%

• Households (ACS 2019–2023):

  • Total households: 3,240
  • Average household size: 2.35
  • Family households: 63%
  • Married-couple families: 48%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: 77%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Perry County, TN context: 8,366 residents (2020 Census) across ~415 sq mi; density ≈20 people/sq mi.

Estimated email users

• Total (age 13+): ≈6,250 (≈87% of residents 13+; ≈75% of all residents)

Age distribution of email users (count; share)

• 13–17: ≈400; 6%
• 18–34: ≈1,310; 21%
• 35–54: ≈1,980; 32%
• 55–64: ≈1,070; 17%
• 65+: ≈1,490; 24%

Gender split among email users: ≈51% female, 49% male (usage is effectively gender-balanced).

Digital access and connectivity

• Household broadband subscription: ≈75%; no home internet: ≈21%; smartphone‑only access: ≈11%.
• Fiber is expanding via Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative (MLEC Fiber), with strongest availability in/around Linden and Lobelville and along major corridors; many outlying areas still rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
• Mobile coverage (AT&T/Verizon/T‑Mobile) is strongest on US‑412 and TN‑13, with spotty service in hollows and bottomlands.
• Typical fixed speeds: 100–1,000 Mbps where fiber is present; 25–100 Mbps via cable/5G FWA; 10–25 Mbps on legacy DSL.

Trends: Broadband adoption has risen markedly since 2019 (≈+8–12 percentage points). Email use remains near‑universal among working‑age adults, with the fastest growth among 65+ as fiber and 4G/5G coverage improve.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Perry County, Tennessee (2025)

Context

• Population and households: Approximately 8,100 residents and about 3,300 households (U.S. Census Bureau Vintage 2023 estimates). The county is older and lower income than the Tennessee average, with a larger share of residents 65+ and lower median household income. These factors materially shape mobile adoption and how people use cellular data.

User estimates

• Adult mobile phone users (any mobile phone, including basic phones): 5,900–6,100 adults, or roughly 94–97% of the adult population. This is a notch below statewide ubiquity but still near-universal.
• Adult smartphone users: 4,900–5,200 adults, or roughly 78–83% of adults. This is meaningfully below Tennessee’s adult smartphone rate (about 88–90%), reflecting the county’s older age structure and lower incomes.
• Households relying primarily on cellular for home internet (mobile-only or mobile-first): 24–30% of households, higher than the Tennessee average (roughly 16–20%). The gap is driven by limited cable/fiber availability outside Linden and Lobelville and the practicality of mobile plans as the default broadband for many lower-income and rental households.
• Prepaid share: Approximately 30–35% of phone lines, above the state’s typical mid-20s share. Credit constraints and price sensitivity raise prepaid adoption locally.
• Multi-line family plans: Widespread among postpaid users, but a smaller share than statewide due to higher prepaid penetration and smaller household sizes.

Demographic breakdown

• Age
  • 18–34: Smartphone adoption ~92–96% (near state levels); heavy app/social/video use mirrors Tennessee norms.
  • 35–64: ~86–89% (a few points below Tennessee averages); more mixing of budget Android devices and installment-financed iPhones.
  • 65+: ~60–68% (well below Tennessee’s ~75–78%); more basic-phone retention and slower upgrade cycles dampen local smartphone share.
• Income
  • Under $35k household income: Highest prepaid usage and mobile-only internet reliance; data-capped plans more common than statewide.
  • $35–75k: Predominantly smartphone users; mix of postpaid and prepaid; hotspotting used to fill home broadband gaps.
  • $75k+: Close to statewide adoption patterns (near-universal smartphones, multi-line postpaid, and supplemental home broadband).
• Geography
  • Linden and Lobelville: Strongest signal and 5G availability; usage looks closer to state norms.
  • Outlying hollows and ridge areas: More voice-only or LTE-only usage and higher reliance on signal boosters due to terrain shadowing.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern: 4G LTE is the floor and broadly available along US-412 and TN-13 and in town centers. Low-band 5G covers population centers and primary corridors; mid-band 5G capacity is present in select locations but is patchy outside towns. mmWave is effectively absent.
• Capacity and speeds: Typical real-world downloads range from 20–60 Mbps in most settled areas, with higher bursts where mid-band 5G is lit and single-digit to teens in terrain-limited pockets. Uploads often sit in the 2–20 Mbps range. These are modestly below state median mobile speeds due to sparser mid-band deployment and fewer sectors per site.
• Reliability: Call and text reliability are comparable to statewide norms in towns and along highways, but signal fade and handoffs increase in valleys and forested areas. Users in fringe areas commonly report using Wi‑Fi calling and/or external antennas.
• Backhaul and sites: Tower density is lower than statewide averages, reflecting the county’s small population and large land area. Where backhaul is fiber-fed (near towns), performance is better and 5G upgrades have arrived sooner; where backhaul is microwave or legacy copper-fed, capacity lags, limiting mid-band 5G reach.
• Public safety and resilience: AT&T’s FirstNet footprint improves emergency coverage and hardening at several sites; this contributes to more resilient service in storms than in similar rural counties without as many upgraded sites, but it does not eliminate consumer coverage gaps in the most remote hollows.
• Fixed-broadband interplay: Cable and fiber availability drops quickly outside the two towns. That scarcity elevates the share of households that rely primarily on mobile data or pair mobile with satellite or fixed wireless. This is the single biggest divergence from the Tennessee average and the main reason mobile data carries a heavier share of total internet use in Perry County.

How Perry County differs from Tennessee overall

• Lower smartphone penetration among older and lower-income residents reduces the countywide smartphone share by roughly 6–10 percentage points versus the state.
• A materially higher share of households rely on cellular service as their primary or only home internet, by roughly 6–10 percentage points.
• Prepaid plan usage is higher, reflecting price sensitivity and credit constraints.
• 5G is present but skews to low-band coverage; mid-band capacity is less pervasive than the statewide picture, keeping median speeds and in-building performance modestly lower.
• Coverage gaps tied to ridge-and-hollow terrain are more persistent than in the average Tennessee county, increasing the use of boosters and Wi‑Fi calling.

Notes on methods and sources

• Population and household baselines from U.S. Census Bureau (Vintage 2023 estimates and ACS patterns for age and income).
• Adoption and reliance rates modeled from Pew Research Center 2023 smartphone and mobile adoption, CDC/NCHS wireless-only trends, NTIA/ACS internet subscription data, and rural-versus-urban deltas applied to Perry County’s older, lower-income profile.
• Infrastructure patterns synthesized from FCC Broadband Data Collection filings, statewide carrier deployment disclosures through 2024, and typical rural Tennessee performance characteristics.

Perry County, TN social media snapshot (best-available, county-calibrated estimates) Method note: Estimates are modeled from the county’s latest ACS population profile and Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. platform adoption, adjusted for rural usage patterns. Figures rounded.

Headline user stats

• Population: ~8.1K residents; ~6.2–6.5K adults (18+)
• Social media users (13+): ~5.4–5.8K (roughly 75–85% of residents 13+)
• Device mix: Skews mobile-first; Facebook Messenger is the dominant private channel

Most-used platforms in Perry County (share of residents 13+)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• TikTok: 28–35%
• Snapchat: 25–30%
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• Reddit: 10–15% Notes: Facebook and YouTube over-index vs national averages in rural counties; Instagram and Reddit under-index slightly.

Age makeup of local social media users (share of total users)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–29: 15–18%
• 30–49: 30–34%
• 50–64: 25–28%
• 65+: 15–18% Implication: A larger mid/older cohort than urban areas drives heavier Facebook and YouTube usage, with TikTok/Snapchat concentrated among teens and twenty-somethings.

Gender breakdown of users

• Female: 51–53%
• Male: 47–49% Behavioral tilt: Women are more active on Facebook/Instagram; men over-index on YouTube and Reddit.

Behavioral trends and content patterns

• Facebook is the community hub: High participation in local Groups (schools, churches, sports, civic services) and heavy Marketplace activity. Engagement surges around local events, sports results, school updates, severe weather, and public notices.
• Video-first habits: YouTube used for how-to content (home, auto, outdoor, hunting/fishing), local music, and product research; consumption increasingly via smart TV apps.
• Short-form growth: TikTok adoption is strongest among 13–34; effective for behind-the-scenes, how-to, and event highlights. Cross-posting Reels/Shorts extends reach.
• Instagram is secondary: Used for local boutiques, food, outdoor recreation, youth sports; Stories often outperform Feed; many posts syndicated from Facebook.
• Snapchat: Primary among teens for messaging and quick updates; limited public/community reach.
• X (Twitter): Niche utility for sports scores, weather, and state news; limited everyday conversation.
• Discovery and trust: Word-of-mouth amplification is strong; recommendations in Facebook Groups materially influence local business selection.
• Timing: Engagement peaks around lunch (11:30 am–1 pm) and evenings (7–9 pm); weekends perform well for events and shopping.
• Ads and reach: Most cost-effective paid reach via Facebook/Instagram; YouTube skippable in-stream for awareness. Geo-targeting within a 25–35 mile radius captures spillover from neighboring counties (Lewis, Wayne, Decatur).

Platform-by-audience fit

• Teens (13–17): Snapchat, TikTok; Instagram for teams/clubs; light Facebook (parent-driven).
• Young adults (18–29): TikTok, Instagram, YouTube; Messenger for coordination; some Snapchat.
• Adults 30–49: Facebook + YouTube core; Instagram for local shopping and family content.
• Adults 50–64 and 65+: Facebook dominant; YouTube for tutorials/news; light on Instagram/TikTok unless grandchild-driven.

Sources

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (latest available for Perry County)
• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adult platform adoption and rural/urban differentials)
• DataReportal/GSMA/Statista aggregates for U.S. platform reach benchmarks