Bland County

Do you want these figures from the latest American Community Survey (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates) or from the 2020 Decennial Census? I can provide both, but numbers will differ slightly.

• Context: Bland County, VA is very rural (population ~6.3k; ~17 people per sq. mile).
• Estimated email users: ~4.3–5.0k residents. Assumes ~85–92% of adults and ~75–85% of teens use email; incarcerated residents are unlikely users, so effective civilian usage is slightly lower than raw population suggests.
• Age distribution of email use (approximate):
  • 18–29: 95–98%
  • 30–49: 97–99%
  • 50–64: 90–95%
  • 65+: 75–85% County’s older age mix nudges overall adoption slightly below Virginia’s urban averages.
• Gender split: Email usage is essentially even between men and women (differences typically <2 percentage points). Local population skews somewhat male due to a state correctional facility, but civilian adoption remains near parity.
• Digital access trends:
  • About 70–80% of households report a broadband subscription; mobile‑only internet reliance is higher than in metro areas.
  • Access and adoption are improving with rural fiber buildouts and state/partner programs; schools, libraries, and county sites provide public Wi‑Fi that supplements home access.
• Connectivity facts: Coverage is strongest along the I‑77 corridor and in town centers; mountainous terrain and dispersed housing create broadband and cellular gaps in hollows and on ridgelines, affecting reliable email access for some households.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Bland County, Virginia

Overview

• Bland County is a small, mountainous, predominantly rural county in far Southwest Virginia, bisected by I‑77. Terrain and low population density strongly shape mobile coverage and adoption patterns, which differ from statewide trends seen in Virginia’s urban and suburban corridors.

User estimates (orders of magnitude; based on 2020–2023 population and national/rural adoption benchmarks)

• Population base: ≈6.1k–6.4k residents; adults (18+) ≈5.0k–5.2k.
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): ≈4.9k–5.1k adults.
• Smartphone users: ≈4.0k–4.2k adults.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): roughly 55–60% of households, below Virginia’s higher, metro-driven averages.
• Households relying primarily on mobile data for home internet: roughly 10–15%, higher than statewide, reflecting patchy fixed broadband in some areas.

Demographic profile and how it shows up in mobile usage

• Age: Older than Virginia overall (larger 65+ share). Effects:
  • Smartphone adoption among seniors materially lower than the state average.
  • More basic/voice-centric devices and longer device replacement cycles.
  • Heavier use of Wi‑Fi calling and in-home signal boosters where coverage is weak.
• Income: Median household income well below the Virginia average.
  • Higher mix of prepaid plans and MVNOs; cost-sensitive device choices (Android skew).
  • Family plan penetration lower than in suburbs; single-line prepaid common.
• Education and occupation: Lower bachelor’s attainment; mix of agriculture, trades, logistics (I‑77).
  • Practical, coverage-first carrier selection; hotspot use for work where fixed service is absent.
• Race/ethnicity: Predominantly White, non-Hispanic; less diversity than state aggregate. Device ecosystem differences are driven more by age/income than by ethnicity.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Topography: Ridge-and-valley terrain plus national forest tracts create shadowed “dead zones” off ridgelines and in hollows. Outdoor coverage can drop quickly off main roads; indoor penetration is a recurring issue in metal-roofed and masonry structures.
• Macro coverage:
  • I‑77 corridor: Generally the strongest, most consistent LTE/low-band 5G from major carriers; traffic and weather-related congestion spikes occur seasonally.
  • Off-corridor and secondary roads (e.g., along US‑52 and into valleys): Service becomes spotty; low-band LTE (700/850 MHz) is often the only dependable layer; residents frequently lean on Wi‑Fi calling.
• 5G:
  • Low-band 5G from national carriers is present along primary corridors; practical speeds resemble good LTE.
  • Mid-band 5G (e.g., C‑band/2.5 GHz) is limited or absent away from highway-adjacent sites; mmWave is effectively nonexistent.
• Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) prioritized coverage concentrates on the interstate and county facilities; off-corridor coverage remains variable.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Local telco/co-op fiber builds are ongoing but not yet universal; DSL and WISPs persist in pockets.
  • T‑Mobile 5G Home Internet is available near certain cells; Verizon 5G Home is limited. Starlink adoption is higher than the state average where trees and terrain still allow line-of-sight.
• Tower siting: Sparse macro grid with ridge-top placements and corridor-focused sites; permitting and backhaul to remote ridgelines constrain densification.

How Bland County trends differ from Virginia overall

• Adoption and devices
  • Lower smartphone penetration, driven by a larger 65+ population and lower incomes.
  • Higher share of prepaid and MVNO lines; longer device lifecycles; stronger Android skew.
• Network experience
  • Coverage variability is wider; residents rely more on Wi‑Fi calling and boosters.
  • 5G is predominantly low-band with modest speed gains versus LTE; mid-band 5G far less available than in Virginia’s metros.
• Home connectivity
  • Greater reliance on mobile data and hotspots as a primary internet option where fiber/cable is missing.
  • Starlink uptake and WISP usage exceed state averages; cable/fiber penetration lags.
• Traffic patterns
  • Transient demand from I‑77 trucking and seasonal travel drives corridor-focused capacity upgrades and intermittent congestion not mirrored in most suburban/urban Virginia markets.

Notes on methodology

• Estimates pair recent population/household counts for Bland County with national/rural tech adoption data (e.g., Pew Research for device ownership, CDC/NTIA for wireless-only households) and typical rural Appalachian coverage patterns. Figures are rounded to reflect uncertainty and local variation neighborhood by neighborhood.

Below is a concise, county-level snapshot built from the latest Pew Research Center social-media benchmarks (2023–2024) adjusted for rural patterns and Bland County’s small, older population. Exact county survey data aren’t published, so figures are modeled estimates with ranges.

Overview and user counts

• Population: ~6,200 residents (older, rural age mix).
• Adults (18+): ~4,800.
• Estimated social media users:
  • Adults: 75–83% → ~3,600–4,000 users.
  • Teens (13–17): ~90–95% → ~320–350 users.
  • Total users (13+): ~4,000–4,300.

Most-used platforms (adult reach, estimated)

• YouTube: 78–85% (broad, all ages).
• Facebook: 70–76% (dominant locally; Groups/Marketplace).
• Instagram: 38–45% (stronger under 40).
• TikTok: 28–35% (skews <40; growing with short-form).
• Pinterest: 28–35% (women-heavy).
• Snapchat: 22–28% (teens/young adults).
• X/Twitter: 15–20% (men, news/sports).
• Reddit: 12–18% (men, younger).
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (below U.S. avg. given local occupations).
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (limited rural footprint; Facebook Groups fill the niche).

Age patterns (who’s using what)

• Teens (13–17): ~90–95% any social; ~90%+ YouTube; 70–85% Snapchat; 65–75% TikTok; Facebook minimal except for school/teams.
• 18–29: 90%+ any; high Instagram (70–85%), TikTok (55–70%), Snapchat (45–60%), YouTube very high, Facebook moderate (often for Marketplace/community).
• 30–49: 85%+ any; Facebook (70–80%) and YouTube (80%+) lead; Instagram (45–55%); TikTok (30–40%).
• 50–64: 75–80% any; Facebook (65–75%) and YouTube (~70–80%) dominate; Instagram/TikTok smaller (15–30%).
• 65+: 55–65% any; Facebook (55–60%) and YouTube (~55–60%) are primary.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Women: Higher on Facebook and Pinterest (Pinterest often 2–3x men); slightly higher on Instagram and TikTok.
• Men: Higher on YouTube, Reddit, and X/Twitter; LinkedIn modestly higher among working-age men.

Behavioral trends in Bland County (rural/Appalachian pattern)

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups for school alerts, church/community events, local government updates, yard sales, youth sports; Facebook Marketplace is the default buy/sell channel (vehicles, farm/yard equipment).
• Information utility: YouTube “how-to” and local-interest content (farming, hunting/fishing, repairs); short-form (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) growing for practical tips and entertainment.
• Timing: Engagement spikes early morning (commute/school-run) and evenings; strong weekend activity around local events and sports.
• Trust and diffusion: Word-of-mouth via group admins and known locals carries more weight than polished brand creative; local photos, names, and landmarks perform best.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger and SMS dominate; WhatsApp under-indexes relative to urban areas.
• News/weather: Quick shifts to Facebook/TikTok/YouTube during storms, road closures, outages; local updates outperform national sources.

Notes for planning

• These are modeled estimates; validate with:
  • Facebook Ads/Instagram reach estimator for Bland County + nearby spillover (Wythe, Giles, Tazewell/Mercer).
  • Page/Group Insights from key local groups.
  • YouTube and TikTok geo-targeting reach tools.