Greensville County

Greensville County, Virginia — key demographics

Population size

• Total population: ~11,100 (2023 Census Population Estimates Program)
• 2020 Census count: 11,4xx
• Note: Population and sex/age structure are significantly affected by the large incarcerated population (group quarters) in the county

Age

• Median age: ~41 years (ACS 2019–2023 5-year)
• Under 18: ~13%
• 18–64: ~70%
• 65 and over: ~17%

Gender

• Male: ~60–62%
• Female: ~38–40%

Racial/ethnic composition (alone or in combination; Hispanic is of any race)

• Black or African American: ~58–62%
• White: ~33–37%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~3–4%
• Two or more races: ~1–2%
• Asian: ~0–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0–1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~3,400 (ACS 2019–2023 5-year)
• Persons per household: ~2.3–2.4
• Family households: ~65–70% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~20–25%
• Homeownership rate: ~70–75%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey (5-year); 2023 Population Estimates Program. Figures rounded; ACS values are estimates with margins of error.

• Scope: Greensville County, Virginia (2020 Census population 11,391; ~39 residents per sq mi).

• Estimated email users: ~8,000 residents (about 70% of the total population), derived from local internet-subscription rates and U.S. email adoption among internet users.

• Age distribution of email users:

  • 15–24: ~16%
  • 25–44: ~32%
  • 45–64: ~31%
  • 65+: ~21%

• Gender split of email users: ~51% female, ~49% male.

• Digital access and trends:

  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~75–80% (ACS-style computer/internet measures for similar rural Virginia counties).
  • Internet access (any type, including mobile-only): ~82–88% of households; smartphone-only access is notably higher than state urban averages.
  • Usage is strongest near population centers and transportation corridors (e.g., I‑95/Emporia area), with patchier fixed-broadband options in sparsely populated tracts.
  • Mobile network performance has improved with 4G/5G upgrades, supporting email on smartphones where wired options lag.
  • Affordability remains a constraint; the lapse of federal ACP funding in 2024 increases pressure on low-income households.

• Local density/connectivity facts: Low population density and dispersed housing raise last‑mile costs, which depress fiber and high‑speed cable build‑out relative to state averages, reinforcing reliance on mobile and public Wi‑Fi (libraries/schools) for email access.

Greensville County, VA: mobile phone usage snapshot and how it differs from statewide patterns

Executive takeaways

• Greensville is more mobile-dependent than Virginia overall: a larger share of households rely on smartphones as their primary or only internet connection, and mobile networks shoulder more of the day-to-day connectivity load outside the I‑95/US‑58 corridors.
• Coverage and speeds are bifurcated: strong along highways with 5G, but LTE-only and slower in outlying areas, producing greater variability than the state average.

Population and demographics (context for adoption)

• Population: 11,391 (2020 Census; Emporia is an independent city and not included in the county total).
• Age: older than Virginia overall (median age low‑40s vs ~39 statewide), which slightly dampens smartphone adoption among seniors.
• Race/ethnicity: majority Black (about three in five), roughly one in three White, small Hispanic/Latino population. This mix aligns with higher smartphone reliance for home internet compared with statewide averages.
• Income: notably below the Virginia median, with a higher poverty rate. Lower incomes correlate with greater use of prepaid plans and phone‑only internet access.

User estimates (current, best-available)

• Adult smartphone adoption: approximately 82–86% of adults in Greensville (vs ~89–91% statewide). That equates to roughly 7,200–7,600 adult smartphone users in the county.
• Smartphone‑only home internet: about 20–25% of households rely on a smartphone for their primary or only internet access (vs ~12–14% statewide). This gap is one of the clearest county‑vs‑state differences.
• Mobile as primary connectivity: mobile data is the main internet path for a noticeably larger share of residents than in Virginia overall, especially in areas beyond Emporia’s immediate vicinity and outside the I‑95/US‑58 corridors.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carriers and 5G footprint:
  • All three national carriers (AT&T/FirstNet, Verizon, T‑Mobile) provide countywide outdoor coverage along I‑95 and US‑58, with low‑band 5G widely present on these corridors.
  • Mid‑band 5G (Verizon C‑band; T‑Mobile 2.5 GHz n41; AT&T C‑band where deployed) is concentrated around highway corridors and population clusters; away from these, service often falls back to LTE, particularly indoors.
• Speeds (typical user experience):
  • Along I‑95/US‑58 and near denser nodes: 100–300 Mbps on mid‑band 5G is common.
  • Rural interior/indoor locations: 10–60 Mbps is more typical on LTE/low‑band 5G, with occasional pockets below 10 Mbps.
  • This variability is greater than Virginia’s statewide median experience, which benefits from denser urban 5G deployments.
• Coverage gaps and reliability:
  • Forested, low‑density areas off the main corridors see weaker indoor signal and occasional dead zones—more prevalent than the statewide norm.
  • Voice/SMS reliability is generally good on major roads; off‑corridor reliability is uneven compared with statewide performance.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • Middle‑mile fiber is present along the interstate/US‑58 and utility routes (including regional providers such as Mid‑Atlantic Broadband in Southside). This underpins better speeds on corridor‑adjacent towers than on deep‑rural sites.
• Fixed broadband competition (impact on mobile reliance):
  • City-grade cable/fiber options are limited outside Emporia; legacy DSL remains in some rural areas, and electric‑cooperative fiber builds are expanding but not yet universal.
  • Where wired options are weak or absent, T‑Mobile 5G Home Internet, Verizon LTE/5G Home, and Starlink have meaningful uptake, reinforcing the county’s above‑average dependence on mobile spectrum for home connectivity.

How Greensville differs from Virginia overall

• Higher smartphone‑only share: Greensville households are substantially more likely to depend on smartphones as their only or primary internet access, reflecting lower incomes and patchier wired broadband.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption, but higher mobile reliance: Seniors and budget‑conscious users are more prevalent, pulling down the adoption percentage modestly; yet mobile networks carry a larger share of total internet use than in more urbanized Virginia localities.
• More prepaid usage and hotspot tethering: Budget patterns and inconsistent wired service push residents toward prepaid plans and hotspot use for home needs at rates above the state average.
• Less mid‑band 5G away from corridors: Virginia’s cities enjoy denser mid‑band 5G; Greensville’s interior is more often LTE/low‑band 5G, leading to slower average speeds and bigger performance swings by location.

Implications

• For operators: densification and additional mid‑band 5G sites away from I‑95/US‑58 would materially improve indoor coverage and raise median speeds toward the state norm.
• For policymakers: accelerating last‑mile fiber and targeted 5G upgrades in interior census blocks will reduce the county’s smartphone‑only burden and close the service quality gap vs statewide levels.

Sources and methodology

• Population and demographic baselines: 2020 Census; American Community Survey 5‑year estimates (latest available).
• Adoption and “smartphone‑only” rates are county‑level estimates derived from ACS device/subscription indicators, adjusted for rural composition and age structure, benchmarked against Virginia statewide ACS and Pew Research smartphone adoption data.
• Coverage and speed characterizations synthesize FCC mobile coverage filings, carrier public 5G footprints, Southside VA middle‑mile maps, and typical rural Virginia speed‑test patterns.

Greensville County, VA — Social Media Usage Snapshot (2024, modeled)

Scope and method

• County-specific estimates modeled from the latest ACS demographics for Greensville County and Pew Research Center 2024 platform-adoption rates by age and rurality; figures reflect adult, non-institutional residents and are rounded.

Overall user stats

• Adult social media users: ~4,800 (about 78% of adult, non-institutional residents; roughly 42% of total county residents when including the incarcerated population)
• Primary access: mobile-first (majority of use occurs on smartphones)

Most-used platforms among adult residents

• YouTube: ~80%
• Facebook: ~70%
• Instagram: ~35%
• TikTok: ~28%
• Pinterest: ~28%
• Snapchat: ~24%
• WhatsApp: ~22%
• X (Twitter): ~17%
• LinkedIn: ~15%
• Reddit: ~10%
• Nextdoor: ~12%

Age-group profile of active users

• 18–29: 20% of local users; platform mix: Instagram (75%), Snapchat (65%), TikTok (60%), YouTube (~95%)
• 30–49: 32% of local users; platform mix: Facebook (80%), YouTube (90%), Instagram (50%), WhatsApp (30%), TikTok (30%)
• 50–64: 30% of local users; platform mix: Facebook (78%), YouTube (83%), Instagram (30%), Pinterest (~30%)
• 65+: 18% of local users; platform mix: Facebook (58%), YouTube (52%), Nextdoor (12%), Instagram (~20%)

Gender breakdown and tendencies

• Share of active users: ~54% women, ~46% men
• Relative tendencies:
  • Women higher on Facebook (75% vs ~66%), Instagram (38% vs 32%), Pinterest (45% vs ~15%)
  • Men higher on YouTube (83% vs ~78%), Reddit (13% vs 7%), X/Twitter (19% vs ~15%)

Behavioral trends

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups and Pages are the hub for local news, schools, churches, civic updates, yard sales, and lost/found; Marketplace is a major driver of weekly logins.
• Mobile and practical content: Short, utility-focused posts (weather alerts, road closures, school sports, local deals) outperform brand-heavy messaging.
• Video attention is selective: YouTube dominates for DIY, repairs, hunting/fishing, and local sports highlights; TikTok skews entertainment among under-35.
• Messaging-centric coordination: Facebook Messenger is the default for community organizing and small-business customer service; WhatsApp adoption is present in family and work networks that span regions.
• Posting vs lurking: Most residents read, react, and share more than they originate content; engagement spikes when posts have local names, faces, or urgent relevance.
• Small-business playbook: Boosted Facebook posts with tight geographic targeting, clear calls to call/text, and time-bound offers perform best; Instagram is used for visuals in food, retail, and beauty; LinkedIn is niche for logistics, healthcare, and public sector hiring.
• Timing: Engagement clusters early morning (commute/school prep) and evenings; weekends drive Marketplace and local events traffic.

Notes

• Figures are best-available county estimates derived from applying national/rural adoption rates to Greensville’s age structure and excluding the sizable incarcerated population from the active-user base. Percentages reflect share of adult, non-institutional residents unless noted.