Essex County

Essex County, Vermont — key demographics

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates). Small-county figures have margins of error.

• Population: 5,920 (2020 Census)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~49.7 years
  • Under 18: ~17%
  • 18–64: ~58%
  • 65+: ~25%
• Sex:
  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity (shares of total population):
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~95.5%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~1.7%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~1.9%
  • Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~0.4%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.3%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.2%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~2,600
  • Average household size: ~2.23
  • Family households: ~62% of households
  • Occupied housing tenure: ~84% owner-occupied; ~16% renter-occupied

Essex County, VT snapshot (estimates)

• Population/density: ~6,000 residents; roughly 9 people per sq. mile (lowest density in Vermont).
• Estimated email users: 4,200–4,800 residents (about 70–80% of the population). Driven by near‑universal use among working‑age adults and access gaps in the most remote tracts.
• Age profile of email users:
  • 13–17: 4–6%
  • 18–34: 20–25%
  • 35–64: 50–55%
  • 65+: 20–25% (adoption lower than younger groups)
• Adoption by age (approx.): 18–64 at 90–98%; 65+ at 70–85%.
• Gender split: ~50/50; usage rates are similar for men and women.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet subscription around 75–85%, improving as NEK Broadband expands fiber across the Northeast Kingdom (Essex/Orleans/Caledonia) with recent ARPA/BEAD‑funded builds.
  • Mobile‑only and satellite (e.g., Starlink) fill remaining gaps; legacy DSL still present.
  • Public libraries and town offices are important Wi‑Fi hubs.
  • Cellular reliability is strongest along US‑2/VT‑105/VT‑114 corridors; dead zones persist in valleys and remote roads.
• Context: Sparse settlement, long driveways, and forested terrain raise last‑mile costs, slowing universal broadband but upgrades are accelerating.

Essex County, VT mobile phone usage — summary with county-versus-state highlights

Topline user estimates (order-of-magnitude, 2024)

• Total residents: about 6,000; adults: ~5,000.
• Residents using any mobile phone: roughly 4,300–4,800 (about 85–95% of adults; slightly below the Vermont average).
• Smartphone users: roughly 3,700–4,200 (about 70–85% of adults; several points below statewide).
• Households with an active smartphone/cellular data plan: about 2,000–2,400.
• Households relying on a mobile phone as their primary internet: noticeable but constrained by coverage gaps; expect a similar or slightly lower share than Vermont overall in remote parts of the county, with higher smartphone-reliance pockets in town centers.

What differs from Vermont overall

• Lower smartphone penetration: Essex’s older age structure and lower incomes pull smartphone adoption a few points below the state average; feature-phone use is more common.
• More uneven connectivity: Large dead zones and unreliable signal outside town centers make mobile-only internet less viable than in much of Vermont; Wi‑Fi calling is used heavily where home broadband exists.
• Slower 5G rollout: 5G is sparse and largely limited to low-band spillover near border towns and highway corridors; most coverage is still 4G/LTE. Statewide, 5G is more available along major interstates and population centers.
• Higher share of households with no internet subscription or limited devices: Non-adoption remains noticeably above the Vermont average, reflecting age, income, and infrastructure constraints.
• Different reliance patterns: In village centers (e.g., Island Pond/Brighton, Canaan, Lunenburg, Guildhall), some lower-income households lean on smartphones for connectivity, but countywide mobile-only use is checked by coverage gaps—unlike many other parts of Vermont where mobile-only can be a more consistent substitute.

Demographic breakdown (drivers of usage)

• Age: Essex has one of Vermont’s oldest populations. Adults 65+ are less likely to own smartphones and more likely to keep basic phones or share devices, depressing overall smartphone penetration.
• Income/education: Lower median incomes correlate with more prepaid plans, longer device replacement cycles, and occasional smartphone-only internet use in areas with adequate signal.
• Youth and working-age adults: Adoption is high, but this cohort is a smaller share of the population than statewide, muting countywide smartphone rates.
• Geography within the county: Town centers and Connecticut River corridor towns have markedly better service than sparsely populated, heavily forested or mountainous areas (e.g., Victory, Maidstone, Norton, Ferdinand), which see frequent drop-offs.

Digital infrastructure and market context

• Coverage profile:
  • Predominantly 4G/LTE; limited, patchy low-band 5G near a few corridors and border-adjacent areas.
  • Coverage is materially better in and near town centers and along primary routes (VT‑114, VT‑105, VT‑102, US‑2) and weaker in interior backroads and high terrain.
• Carrier landscape:
  • Verizon and AT&T generally offer the most usable rural LTE footprints; T‑Mobile service can be strong where low-band spectrum reaches but is inconsistent in the backcountry.
  • FirstNet (AT&T) additions on public-safety sites have improved reliability for first responders and may marginally benefit the public near those sites.
• Tower density and backhaul:
  • Sparse macro-tower grid relative to terrain; foliage and topography create shadowing.
  • Ongoing fiber buildouts by regional CUDs (e.g., NEK Broadband) improve backhaul and set the stage for future small cells, but mobile networks still lag state corridors.
• Workarounds and supplements:
  • Wi‑Fi calling is common at homes and businesses with broadband.
  • Public Wi‑Fi at libraries/town buildings is an important stopgap.
  • Satellite and legacy DSL remain in use where neither fiber nor dependable mobile data is available.

Implications for planning and service delivery

• Expect slower growth in smartphone adoption than the Vermont average without parallel investments in coverage and device affordability for older and lower-income residents.
• Expanding fiber backhaul and permitting on public-safety or utility structures can unlock targeted small cells in village centers and along problem road segments.
• Programs that pair affordable devices with Wi‑Fi calling education can materially improve “effective” mobile service even where RF coverage is marginal.

Notes on estimates

• Figures reflect ACS device/subscription patterns for rural Vermont counties, Pew adoption by age/rural status, and carrier coverage tendencies as of 2024. Because Essex is small and highly rural, conditions can vary sharply town by town; verify specifics with the latest ACS S2801/S2802 tables, FCC mobile coverage maps, and current carrier maps before making investment decisions.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot for Essex County, VT. Because platforms don’t publish county-level figures, the numbers are modeled estimates using recent U.S. Census (ACS) demographics for Essex County and Pew Research Center social-media adoption by age, adjusted for the county’s older, rural profile. Treat figures as directional with modest margins of error.

Headline numbers (13+)

• Population: ~5,900 total; ~5,200 age 13+
• Estimated social media users (13+): ~3,300 (range 3,100–3,600), about 57–61% of total residents and ~62–69% of 13+
• Internet/broadband constraints: patchy and slower in parts of the county; lowers heavy video/live-stream usage and favors shorter video or image/text posts

Age breakdown of users (share of social users, approx.)

• 13–17: ~8%
• 18–34: ~25%
• 35–49: ~23%
• 50–64: ~26%
• 65+: ~18% Note: Essex skews older; nearly half of social users are 50+.

Gender split of users

• Female: ~52% (±2)
• Male: ~48% (±2)

Most-used platforms in Essex County (share of social users; “use at least monthly”)

• Facebook: ~70–75% (No. 1; strongest cross-age reach, especially 35+)
• YouTube: ~70–78% (high, but bandwidth limits lengthy HD viewing)
• Instagram: ~28–35% (skews <50, local businesses/creators)
• TikTok: ~18–25% (concentrated among teens/20s; more consumption than posting)
• Snapchat: ~15–20% (teens/20s; messaging-heavy)
• Pinterest: ~25–32% (strong among women, DIY, recipes, crafts)
• WhatsApp: ~8–12% (niche; families with out-of-area ties)
• X/Twitter: ~10–15% (news/sports/politics power users)
• Reddit: ~10–14% (statewide topics, less hyperlocal)
• LinkedIn: ~12–18% (lower white-collar density)
• Nextdoor: ~5–8% (limited local footprint; many towns rely on Facebook Groups instead)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups dominate for town notices, road conditions, school updates, lost & found, snowmobile clubs, hunting/fishing, yard sales, and event coordination.
• Small business playbook: Heavy reliance on Facebook Pages/Groups and Instagram; boosted posts around seasonal peaks (foliage, maple, winter sports). Word-of-mouth shares outperform large ad spends.
• Video patterns: YouTube widely used for how-to, equipment repair, homesteading, and church services; shorter clips perform better due to bandwidth constraints. Live video usage is modest outside storm/emergency updates.
• Youth behavior: Teens/20s cluster on Snapchat (messaging) and TikTok (consumption-heavy, local lifestyle/outdoors content). Instagram is secondary; Facebook used mainly for groups/events.
• News and alerts: Weather, power outages, road closures, and school/town meeting info drive spikes. Even light users check in during storms or emergencies.
• Trust dynamics: Posts from known locals, town offices, schools, and established admins see higher engagement; skepticism toward unfamiliar pages is common.
• Timing: Engagement peaks early mornings (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekend mid-days are strong for events and marketplace posts.