Rutland County

Rutland County, Vermont — key demographics (latest ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates; figures rounded)

Population

• Total population: ~60,300

Age

• Median age: 46.7 years
• Under 18: 18%
• 18–64: 58%
• 65 and over: 24%

Sex

• Female: 50.8%
• Male: 49.2%

Race and ethnicity

• White, non-Hispanic: 93.2%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): 2.5%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: 1.3%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: 0.8%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: 0.3%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 1.9%

Households

• Total households: ~26,100
• Average household size: 2.21
• Family households: 59%
• Married-couple families: 46%
• Households with children under 18: 24%
• One-person households: 32% (65+ living alone: 13%)
• Housing tenure: owner-occupied ~73%, renter-occupied ~27%

Notes and insights

• Demographics skew older, with about one in four residents age 65+.
• The population is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with small but growing racial/ethnic minority shares.
• Household sizes are small and homeownership is high, typical of rural New England counties.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates. Figures rounded; totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Rutland County, VT email usage snapshot

• Estimated users: ~44,500 adult email users (county pop 60,572; ~49,000 adults; ≈91% adult adoption).
• Age distribution of users (estimated):
  • 18–34: ~9,800
  • 35–54: ~15,100
  • 55–64: ~7,800
  • 65+: ~11,800
• Gender split: ~51% women, 49% men among email users (mirrors local sex ratio).
• Digital access trends:
  • About 83% of households subscribe to broadband; roughly 21,500 of ~26,000 households are online.
  • Computer access is widespread (about nine in ten households); smartphone reliance is rising, especially in younger and lower‑density areas.
  • Email remains the default for appointments, school notices, government services, and local commerce, with older residents checking less frequently but still widely using it.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈64 people per square mile (large rural footprint with small urban centers).
  • Highest fixed broadband capacity clusters in Rutland City/US‑7 corridor (cable/fiber); mountain and lake towns rely more on DSL/fixed wireless.
  • Ongoing fiber builds led by regional Communications Union District efforts (e.g., Otter Creek CUD) are expanding 100 Mbps+ service, steadily narrowing rural gaps.

Mobile phone usage in Rutland County, Vermont (2024 estimates)

Headline numbers

• Population base: ~59,500 residents
• Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ~51,500 people (about 87% of residents)
• Smartphone users: ~44,200 people (about 74% of residents)
• Devices/platforms among smartphone users: 55% iOS (24,300 users), 45% Android (19,900 users)

Demographic breakdown (ownership levels are share of people in each group)

• Ages 0–12: 6,550 residents; mobile phone users ~30% (1,960); smartphone users 20% (1,310)
• Ages 13–17: 3,570 residents; mobile phone users ~97% (3,460); smartphone users 95% (3,390)
• Ages 18–29: 7,140 residents; mobile phone users ~98% (7,000); smartphone users 95% (6,780)
• Ages 30–49: 14,280 residents; mobile phone users ~98% (14,000); smartphone users 94% (13,420)
• Ages 50–64: 12,500 residents; mobile phone users ~92% (11,500); smartphone users 80% (10,000)
• Ages 65+: 15,470 residents; mobile phone users ~88% (13,620); smartphone users 60% (9,280)
• Notable device mix among older adults: ~4,340 residents age 65+ and ~1,500 residents age 50–64 use basic/feature phones rather than smartphones, reflecting a higher non‑smartphone share than the state average

Usage and adoption patterns

• Overall smartphone adoption is lower than the Vermont average, driven by an older age profile and slightly lower household incomes than the state median. This produces:
  • A larger share of basic/flip phones among 50+ adults
  • Higher reliance on value/MVNO and prepaid plans, especially outside Rutland City and along the western lake towns
  • A modestly lower iOS share than statewide (Rutland ~55% vs statewide closer to 60%), reflecting price sensitivity and older device retention
• Youth and working‑age adoption are near statewide levels, but multi‑line ownership (phone + watch/tablet) is less common than in Chittenden and Washington counties

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 5G coverage
  • Mid‑band 5G is available in and around Rutland City and along the US‑7 and US‑4 corridors; coverage thins in hill towns and forested valleys
  • In outlying areas, 5G is predominantly low‑band with LTE fallback; practical user experience varies block by block with terrain
• Terrain constraints and dead zones
  • Persistent weak signal or dead‑zone pockets occur in the Green Mountain spine (e.g., Mendon/Chittenden uplands, Tinmouth ridges, Mount Tabor) and on secondary roads away from US‑7/US‑4
  • Coverage is generally reliable in Brandon, Pittsford, Castleton–Fair Haven, and Poultney village centers, with rural gaps between them
• Carrier positioning
  • Verizon and AT&T provide the broadest geographic coverage, particularly along highways and population centers; T‑Mobile performance is strong where mid‑band is lit (Rutland City, main corridors) but patchier off‑corridor
  • AT&T FirstNet Band 14 is present on primary routes and around public safety hubs, improving resiliency for first responders
• Capacity and seasonality
  • Weekend and holiday surges at Killington/Pico and Lake Bomoseen drive localized capacity stress; carriers add temporary capacity during peak ski periods more than a typical Vermont county
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Ongoing fiber builds (e.g., Fidium/Consolidated and incumbent cable) along US‑7/US‑4 and town centers have improved macro‑site backhaul since 2023, enabling mid‑band 5G upgrades in the core; less fiber depth in remote valleys slows small‑cell densification outside the city grid

How Rutland differs from Vermont overall

• Adoption
  • Smartphone penetration (~74% of residents) is several points lower than the statewide level due to older demographics and income mix
  • Basic/feature‑phone use among 50+ adults is notably higher than the state average, and MVNO/prepaid share is higher
• Device ecosystem
  • Slightly lower iOS share and slower upgrade cadence than Chittenden/Washington counties; more three‑to‑five‑year device retention
• Network experience
  • Larger urban–rural performance gap within the county: mid‑band 5G and small cells are concentrated in Rutland City and along main corridors, while low‑band 5G/LTE prevails in the hills
  • More pronounced seasonal capacity swings tied to ski tourism than most Vermont counties
• Infrastructure deployment
  • Fewer small cells per capita than the state’s urban corridor; tower siting is driven by mountainous terrain rather than dense‑street grids, which slows uniform 5G mid‑band expansion

Interpretation and implications

• The county’s user base is bimodal: urban/corridor users see modern 5G performance, while rural/hill‑town users rely on low‑band 5G/LTE with occasional gaps. This widens the experience gap versus the statewide average centered on Burlington suburbs.
• Seniors are the critical segment for digital inclusion: targeted training, affordable smartphone programs, and devices with larger UI/accessibility features would shift a sizable portion of 50+ basic‑phone users to smartphones.
• Continued fiber backhaul buildouts and selective macro densification on ridge lines will yield bigger user‑visible gains than additional low‑band overlays, especially in Mendon–Chittenden–Tinmouth corridors.

Notes on method

• Population by age is based on current ACS‑style distributions for Rutland County scaled to ~59.5k residents. Ownership rates apply nationally observed age‑specific mobile and smartphone adoption adjusted modestly for rural/older demographic mix typical of Rutland County. Counts are rounded to the nearest 10–20 users and should be interpreted as 2024 point estimates.

Social media usage in Rutland County, VT (2024–2025 snapshot)

Audience size and penetration

• Overall adoption: Approximately 75–80% of residents age 13+ use at least one social platform monthly; 60–65% use daily. This reflects Vermont’s older age profile and rural mix compared with national usage.
• Household connectivity: The majority of households have broadband, supporting high social media reach and video consumption.

Most‑used platforms (modeled monthly reach among residents 13+)

• YouTube: 70–76%
• Facebook: 60–66%
• Instagram: 28–34%
• TikTok: 22–27%
• Snapchat: 19–24% (concentrated under age 30)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (skews female, 25–54)
• LinkedIn: 13–18% (professionals, 25–54)
• X (Twitter): 10–14%
• Reddit: 10–13%

Age profile and platform skew

• Teens (13–17): TikTok 55–65%; Snapchat 60–70%; Instagram 50–60%; Facebook under 30%. Very high daily use and messaging-first behavior.
• Young adults (18–29): Instagram 60–70%; TikTok 45–55%; Snapchat 45–55%; YouTube ~90%; Facebook 40–50%.
• Adults (30–49): Facebook 70–80%; YouTube 80–85%; Instagram 35–45%; TikTok 20–30%.
• Adults (50–64): Facebook 70–75%; YouTube 70–80%; Instagram 20–30%; TikTok 10–15%.
• Seniors (65+): Facebook 60–70%; YouTube 55–65%; minimal use of TikTok/Snapchat/Instagram.

Gender breakdown (share using each platform monthly)

• Facebook: Women slightly higher than men (+3–5 percentage points).
• Instagram: Women higher (+5–7 pp), especially 18–34.
• TikTok: Women modestly higher (+3–5 pp).
• Pinterest: Strong female skew (women ~2× men).
• YouTube: Men slightly higher (+3–5 pp).
• Reddit/X: Men higher (+5–8 pp).
• LinkedIn: Balanced overall; skew to men in tech/engineering roles.

Behavioral trends and content patterns

• Facebook Groups and local pages are the community hub: town alerts, school updates, buy/sell/trade, road conditions, weather, and event calendars see the highest engagement.
• Marketplace is a top traffic driver for 25–64; service businesses and seasonal equipment perform well.
• Video dominates: short vertical video on Facebook/Instagram and TikTok outperforms static posts; YouTube is a staple for how‑to, outdoor, repairs, and local sports highlights.
• Tourism/seasonality: Spikes around ski season (Killington/Pico), foliage, lake season, and holiday events; hospitality and recreation content gains outsized reach in those windows.
• Messaging-first usage: Teens and young adults favor Snapchat and Instagram DMs; Facebook Messenger is common among 30+ for local coordination.
• Posting/engagement timing: Evenings (roughly 7–9 pm) and weekend mornings drive above‑average reactions and shares for local topics and events.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are 2024–2025 modeled local estimates derived by applying current U.S. platform usage by age and gender (Pew Research Center) to Rutland County’s older‑skewing, rural demographic profile (ACS/Census), with adjustments for rural adoption patterns observed across Vermont. Percentages represent monthly reach among residents age 13+ and are expressed as ranges to reflect local variance and platform reporting differences.