Bennington County

Bennington County, Vermont — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates)

• Population: ~37.3–37.4k (2020 Census: 37,430; ACS 2019–2023 5-year: ~37.3k)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~46–47
  • Under 18: ~18%
  • 18–64: ~57%
  • 65 and over: ~25%
• Sex:
  • Female: ~51%
  • Male: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity (percent of total):
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~92–93%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2.5–3%
  • Black or African American: ~1%
  • Asian: ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.4–0.5%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~2.5–3%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~16.3–16.6k
  • Average household size: ~2.2
  • Family households: ~57% (nonfamily ~43%)
  • One-person households: ~33%
  • Households with children under 18: ~22–23%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~72–73%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year (tables DP05, S0101, DP02) and 2020 Decennial Census. Figures are estimates and rounded.

Here’s a concise, evidence‑based estimate for Bennington County, VT:

• Population baseline: ≈37,000 residents; density ≈55 people/sq mi (large rural areas between Bennington and Manchester).
• Estimated email users: 30,000–33,000 (≈80–90% of residents), assuming ~92% adoption among adults and moderate use among teens.
• Age distribution (county, approx.): <18: 18%; 18–34: 17%; 35–64: 40%; 65+: 25%.
  • Email usage by age (typical U.S. patterns applied locally): 18–49 ≈ near‑universal; 50–64 ≈ high (90%+); 65+ slightly lower (≈80–90%); teens moderate (school-driven).
• Gender split: ≈51% female, 49% male; email usage differences by gender are minimal.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Broadband subscription: roughly 80–85% of households (ACS/Vermont-like rural levels).
  • Connectivity improving via fiber buildouts (e.g., Fidium/Consolidated) around population centers; remaining pockets rely on cable, fixed wireless, or legacy DSL.
  • Mobile access: smartphone ownership is high (≈85–90%), but mountainous terrain produces patchy cellular coverage outside towns.
  • Public access: libraries and town Wi‑Fi in Bennington/Manchester support residents without reliable home service.

Notes: Figures are estimates using recent U.S./Vermont adoption rates applied to local population; exact rates vary by town and last‑mile availability.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Bennington County, VT (with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns)

Top takeaways that differ from Vermont overall

• Slightly fewer smartphone users and wireless-only households than the state average, driven by an older age profile and more rural topography.
• Bigger seasonal swings in network demand (second homes, tourism centered on Manchester/Winhall) than most VT counties.
• More cross-border usage patterns with New York and Massachusetts, shaping carrier choice and roaming behavior.
• 5G coverage is concentrated in Bennington and Manchester corridors; large rural tracts remain LTE-only longer than in the Burlington/Chittenden area.
• Prepaid and value MVNO plans are used a bit more than the state average in lower-income southern towns, while affluent pockets skew to premium unlimited plans.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, method noted below)

• Population base: ~37–38k residents (ACS). Potential mobile users (age 12+): ~31.5k–33k.
• People with a mobile phone (any type): ~29k–31k (about 90–93% of age 12+). This is a touch lower than Vermont overall.
• Smartphone users: ~25k–27k (about 78–82% of age 12+, versus roughly mid‑80s statewide).
• 5G‑capable device users: ~17k–20k (about 55–65% of all mobile users). Adoption lags the Burlington metro where mid‑band 5G is more ubiquitous.
• Wireless‑only households (no landline): roughly 58–62% locally vs ~63–67% statewide (CDC NHIS trend adjusted for Bennington’s older profile).
• Mobile‑broadband‑only internet households (rely on phone/hotspot, no fixed broadband): estimated 12–16% locally, modestly above the statewide average, concentrated in more remote valleys and among cost‑sensitive households.
• Plan mix: prepaid/MVNO share somewhat higher than statewide in Bennington/Pownal/Searsburg/Stamford areas; postpaid premium plans cluster in Manchester/Dorset.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: Bennington skews older than VT overall. Smartphone adoption among 65+ is notably lower (roughly 60–65%) and is the main driver of the county’s lower smartphone penetration.
• Income/education: A bimodal pattern—affluent second‑home and retiree households in Manchester/Dorset versus more cost‑constrained households in and south of Bennington—maps to divergent plan choices. Expect more:
  • Premium unlimited + multi‑line family plans in affluent tracts, higher 5G device penetration, and use of watch/tablet add‑ons.
  • Prepaid/MVNO, slower upgrade cycles, and hotspot‑based home internet among cost‑sensitive households.
• Teens/young adults: High smartphone and unlimited-data uptake resembles statewide norms, but overall numbers are smaller given the county’s age structure.
• Seasonal/part‑time residents: A higher share of homes used seasonally (around one‑fifth of housing stock) drives weekend/holiday peaks around Manchester/Winhall and summer peaks across resort towns, a bigger swing than most VT counties experience.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what stands out locally)

• Geography and dead zones: The Green Mountain spine and narrow valleys create shadowed areas—particularly along VT‑9 over Woodford, around the Glastenbury Wilderness, and in sparsely populated ridgelines—leading to more persistent LTE/voice gaps than in the Champlain Valley counties.
• Carrier landscape:
  • Verizon generally offers the broadest rural LTE footprint; C‑band 5G is present in and around Bennington and Manchester but drops to LTE in outlying hills.
  • AT&T coverage is solid on US‑7 and VT‑9; Band 14 (FirstNet) on selected sites benefits public safety and some rural users.
  • T‑Mobile’s 600 MHz (n71) improves corridor coverage along US‑7; mid‑band (n41) appears mainly in town centers. Coverage thins quickly off‑corridor versus state leaders.
• 5G availability: Mid‑band 5G capacity is town‑center‑centric (Bennington, Manchester) with limited reach into low‑density areas. Compared to the Burlington area, Bennington’s 5G buildout is patchier and less consistent across carriers.
• Backhaul and middle‑mile: Fiber backbones from regional providers (e.g., Consolidated/Fidium, FirstLight) run along US‑7 and VT‑9, supporting towers near population centers. Remote sites still face microwave backhaul and power/permit constraints, slowing 5G upgrades versus the state’s more urban counties.
• Public safety and resilience: FirstNet builds have improved reliability on key corridors; text‑to‑911 is available statewide. Terrain‑driven location accuracy challenges are more common here than in flatter parts of Vermont.
• Cross‑border usage: Many residents commute or shop in New York’s Capital District and in northwestern Massachusetts. Users prioritize carriers with strong coverage on both sides of state lines, a bigger factor here than for northern VT counties.

Recent shifts and near‑term trends

• Post‑ACP affordability squeeze: With the federal Affordable Connectivity Program winding down in 2024, some lower‑income households in the county have shifted to cheaper prepaid plans, downgraded data, or rely more on public/library Wi‑Fi—more visible here than in higher‑income VT counties.
• Network investment focus: Expect incremental 5G mid‑band infill on existing macro sites near Bennington and Manchester before deep rural expansion. Small‑cell density remains limited outside compact downtowns.
• Device turnover: Older age and mixed incomes slow 5G handset replacement relative to state hubs, keeping LTE load higher in Bennington than in Burlington/South Burlington.

How the estimates were derived

• Population and age mix: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS (Bennington County ~37–38k; older‑than‑state age profile).
• Smartphone ownership by age and rural/urban: Pew Research Center (2023–2024) applied to Bennington’s age mix with a modest rural discount.
• Wireless‑only households: CDC National Health Interview Survey (2023) regional trends, adjusted downward for Bennington’s older population.
• Coverage/5G patterns: FCC mobile coverage maps (2024), Vermont Department of Public Service maps, and carrier public 5G disclosures, interpreted for local geography.

Social media in Bennington County, VT (short, best-available estimates)

Overall usage

• Population: ~37,000 residents. Adult social-media adoption estimated at 70–75% of adults (roughly 20,000–23,000 adult users).
• Access: High smartphone usage; rural broadband coverage is solid but patchy in some hollows, which nudges heavier use of mobile-first platforms.

Age mix among local social users (est.)

• 18–29: 18–22%
• 30–49: 35–40%
• 50–64: 25–30%
• 65+: 15–20% Notes: Older skew vs. U.S. average; younger cohorts concentrate on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; older cohorts on Facebook and YouTube.

Gender breakdown (est. among social users)

• Women: 52–55%
• Men: 45–48% Notes: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X.

Most-used platforms among adult social users (penetration of local social users, est.)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 70–80% (Groups/Marketplace central to daily use)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (strong with women 25–54)
• TikTok: 25–35% (fast growth into 30s/40s)
• LinkedIn: 20–30% (hiring, professional services, seasonal hospitality)
• Snapchat: 20–25% (teens/early 20s)
• X/Twitter: 18–22% (news, sports, VT/state policy)
• Reddit: 12–18%
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (varies by town) Context: Front Porch Forum (a Vermont-specific community network) is widely used for hyperlocal notices and often substitutes for Nextdoor.

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook Groups anchor community life: town updates, school notices, road conditions, buy/sell/trade, event promotion.
• Front Porch Forum is a go-to for civic info, mutual aid, lost/found, and neighborhood coordination.
• Marketplace is heavily used for outdoor gear, furnishings, vehicles, and seasonal items.
• Video-first consumption: short vertical video on FB/IG/TikTok drives reach; YouTube preferred for how-to, trail info, gear reviews.
• Tourism seasonality: engagement spikes in Sept–Oct (foliage) and winter (ski/outdoor). Content about dining, lodging, trails, and Manchester shopping performs well.
• Local proof matters: posts featuring recognizable places/people and local nonprofits earn higher trust and engagement.
• Messaging behavior: many sales/service interactions move into Messenger/IG DMs.
• Best posting windows: 7–9am, 12–1pm, 6–9pm; weekends strong for events and offers.

Notes on methodology

• County-level platform stats aren’t publicly published. Figures above are reasoned estimates informed by Pew Research Center data on U.S. adult social-media use (2023–2024), rural/older-demographic skews, Vermont age structure, and observed local usage patterns.