Giles County

Here are the latest available estimates for Giles County, Virginia (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year; DP05, DP02). Figures are rounded.

• Population: ~16.7k
• Age:
  • Median age: ~46
  • Under 18: ~19%
  • 65 and over: ~23%
• Gender:
  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%
• Race and ethnicity:
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~93%
  • Black or African American: ~2%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0–1%
  • Asian: ~1%
  • Two or more races: ~3%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~1–2%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~6.8k
  • Average household size: ~2.35
  • Family households: ~67% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~52%
  • Households with children under 18: ~25%

Here’s a pragmatic snapshot (estimates, based on 2020–2023 ACS population for Giles County ~16.6K, Pew national email/internet adoption, and rural broadband trends):

• Estimated email users: ~11–12K (about 85–90% of adults; 70–75% of total residents when including children).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: ~16–18%
  • 30–49: ~32–34%
  • 50–64: ~26–28%
  • 65+: ~20–22% (senior adoption strong but still lower than younger groups)
• Gender split: Roughly even (male/female within ±1–2%), reflecting near-parity in email adoption nationally.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband adoption typical of rural areas (~75–80% of households), with ~15–20% relying primarily on smartphones.
  • Fiber expansion is ongoing via state/federal investments; coverage is best along main corridors and town centers (e.g., Pearisburg/Narrows), with pockets of under‑served terrain in more remote hollows.
  • Public libraries and schools remain important access points and digital literacy hubs.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ~45–50 people per square mile across ~350+ square miles (rural Appalachian topography creates last‑mile challenges).
  • Speeds and reliability vary: valley and highway areas generally see stronger fixed service; mountainous areas see gaps.

Note: Figures are modeled estimates; local surveys or provider data will refine them.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Giles County, Virginia

Context and user estimates

• Population baseline: ≈16.7k residents; ≈80% are adults.
• Mobile phone users (any cell phone): ≈12.5–12.9k adults (about 93–95% of adults; slightly below Virginia’s ≈97%).
• Smartphone users: ≈10.8–11.6k adults (about 82–86% of adults, versus Virginia’s ≈90%). Teen uptake is high but small in absolute numbers due to the county’s age mix.
• Households relying on smartphones as their primary home internet: roughly 1,000–1,250 households (≈14–18% of ≈7k households), notably higher than Virginia’s ≈10–12%. This shows up in heavier use of hotspotting and data-capped plans.

Demographic breakdown (what stands out vs state)

• Age: The county skews older (share of 65+ well above the state average). Smartphone ownership among seniors is lower than the state norm, pulling down overall smartphone penetration; voice/text and basic smartphones remain common in this cohort.
• Income and plans: Median household income trails the Virginia median by a wide margin. That correlates with:
  • Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and discounted unlimited offers.
  • Above-average incidence of smartphone-only internet households.
• Education and digital skills: Lower bachelor’s-attainment than the state average. Practical effects include greater sensitivity to price and coverage, and heavier use of SMS, Facebook, and YouTube over niche or data-heavy apps.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is predominantly White; minority populations are small, so statewide patterns tied to diverse metro areas have limited effect on county-wide usage shares.

Digital infrastructure and coverage patterns

• Terrain-driven variability: Mountainous topography and national forest lands create shadow zones. Coverage is strongest along US-460 and in towns (Pearisburg, Narrows, Pembroke, Rich Creek), with notable gaps in valleys, hollows, and recreation areas (e.g., around Cascades/Mountain Lake).
• Carrier positioning:
  • Verizon generally offers the most consistent rural coverage and low-band 5G along main corridors.
  • AT&T is competitive in towns and on 460; FirstNet upgrades improve public-safety coverage but not all remote areas.
  • T‑Mobile’s extended-range 5G reaches parts of the corridor, but off-corridor gaps remain larger than the state average.
• 5G reality: Low-band 5G is present on main routes; mid-band 5G capacity is much more limited than statewide. Many users still spend significant time on LTE, especially indoors and off-corridor.
• Tower density and siting: Fewer macro sites per square mile than the state average; ridgeline siting helps reach but leaves valley shadowing. In-home coverage often depends on Wi‑Fi calling or boosters.
• Backhaul and fiber: Middle‑mile fiber follows US‑460 and through town centers. Local incumbents (e.g., Pembroke Telephone Cooperative/PTC) and regional carriers have built or are extending fiber in pockets, but distance from fiber routes constrains radio capacity in outlying areas.
• Public/anchor connectivity: Libraries, schools, and county buildings provide key Wi‑Fi offload points. Fixed‑wireless (including CBRS) fills gaps for homes beyond fiber/COAX footprints, indirectly reducing mobile data strain where available.

How Giles County differs from Virginia overall

• Lower overall smartphone penetration, driven mainly by an older age profile.
• Noticeably higher share of households relying on smartphones as their primary home internet.
• Heavier tilt toward prepaid/MVNO and cost-sensitive plans.
• Greater dependence on Verizon for reliable rural coverage; T‑Mobile share lags the state.
• 5G availability and mid-band capacity are sparser; users spend more time on LTE and experience larger indoor and off-corridor dead zones.
• More frequent use of Wi‑Fi calling, hotspots, and signal boosters to compensate for terrain and tower spacing.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are estimates derived from Giles County population/household totals and rural adoption benchmarks from recent national and Virginia datasets through 2024. They are intended for planning and outreach, not as audited counts.

Here’s a concise, best-available picture of social media use in Giles County, VA. Figures are estimates based on ACS county demographics plus 2024 U.S. usage rates (Pew Research) adjusted slightly for rural patterns.

Quick snapshot

• Population: ~16.8k; adults (18+): ~13.7k
• Estimated adult social media users: ~10.5–11.2k (≈77–82% of adults)
• Household internet: ~80–85% (rural VA range), smartphone adoption high among adults

Most-used platforms (adults; share of adults, est.)

• YouTube: 80–85% (≈9.0–9.4k users)
• Facebook: 70–75% (≈7.7–8.4k)
• Instagram: 35–45% (≈4.1–5.0k)
• TikTok: 25–35% (≈2.9–3.8k)
• Pinterest: 28–35% (≈3.0–3.9k)
• Snapchat: 20–28% (≈2.2–3.1k; concentrated under 30)
• WhatsApp: 18–25% (≈2.0–2.8k)
• X (Twitter): 15–20% (≈1.6–2.2k)
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (≈1.4–2.0k; lower than state avg.)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (≈0.5–1.1k; spotty in rural areas)

Typical daily use among platform users (share of each platform’s users)

• Facebook ~70% daily; Instagram ~60%; TikTok ~70%; Snapchat ~75%; YouTube ~50–55%; X ~45–50%

Age patterns (localized from national trends + rural skew)

• Teens (13–17): Snapchat and TikTok dominate; Instagram strong; Facebook mainly for groups/Marketplace via family.
• 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; Facebook used for events, local groups, and Marketplace.
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube lead; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising; Pinterest common among parents.
• 50–64: Facebook first, then YouTube; Pinterest (women) and TikTok growing but still secondary.
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube; overall lower platform mix, but high engagement in community/faith-based groups.

Gender notes (among adult social users)

• Female (~51–52% of users): Over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; heavy participation in school, church, civic, buy/sell groups; strong Marketplace usage.
• Male (~48–49%): Over-index on YouTube, X, Reddit (smaller base); active in outdoors/sports, automotive, and local trading groups.

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: school closings, weather, youth sports, church/civic updates, event flyers; Marketplace is widely used.
• Groups outperform pages: cross-posting to local groups (yard sale, community watch, outdoors, parenting) drives reach.
• Local visuals win: short videos and photo carousels featuring familiar places (New River, Cascades, downtowns) outperform stock content.
• Timing: Engagement peaks 7–9am, 12–1pm, and 7–10pm; weekend mornings are strong.
• Trust is local: Posts by known people, local orgs, and businesses with community roots get higher interaction; “hard sell” or out-of-area ads underperform unless locally anchored.
• Younger users split attention: Instagram/TikTok for discovery; still check Facebook for events/groups; Snapchat for messaging.
• YouTube serves utility: DIY, hunting/fishing, automotive, home projects, and local meeting recordings.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• County-level platform stats aren’t published; figures are estimates built from Giles County ACS demographics and 2024 Pew social media adoption rates, adjusted for rural usage (which tends to lift Facebook and slightly lower LinkedIn/X). Use ranges for planning, not for formal reporting.