Sussex County

Sussex County, Virginia — key demographics

Overall population

• Total population: 10,829 (2020 Census)
• Note: Population counts include two state prisons in the county, which significantly affect sex ratios and some age/race distributions.

Age

• Median age: ~42 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~14% (ACS 2018–2022)
• 65 and over: ~16% (ACS 2018–2022)

Sex

• Male: ~69% (ACS 2018–2022)
• Female: ~31% (ACS 2018–2022)
• Insight: The unusually high male share is driven by the incarcerated population; household-based measures (below) better reflect local residential demographics.

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census)

• Black or African American alone: ~59–60%
• White alone: ~35–37%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3%
• Two or more races: ~1–2%
• Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: each <1%

Households and housing (household-based; excludes group quarters like prisons)

• Households: ~3,300–3,500 (ACS 2018–2022)
• Persons per household: ~2.2–2.3 (ACS 2018–2022)
• Family households: ~65–70% of households (ACS 2018–2022)
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70–75% (ACS 2018–2022)

Insights

• The county’s institutionalized population makes overall sex ratios and some age/race shares atypical for a rural Virginia county; household-based indicators are more representative of community residents.

Sussex County, VA snapshot

• Population and density: ≈10.4k residents; ≈21 people per sq. mile. Two state prisons add ≈2.4–2.7k adult males to the count but contribute little to civilian internet/email use.
• Estimated email users: 5,300–5,900 community-dwelling adults actively use email (≈83–90% of non-incarcerated adults), based on ACS age structure and national rural email adoption rates.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: 12–15%
  • 30–49: 26–30%
  • 50–64: 30–33%
  • 65+: 24–27%
• Gender split among users: Female 53–57%; Male 43–47% (active users skew female because the county’s prison-inflated male population is largely offline).
• Digital access trends and connectivity:
  • Home broadband subscriptions: about 70–78% of households; smartphone‑only internet: 12–18%.
  • Coverage is strongest along I‑95/US‑460 and in/near Waverly and Stony Creek; low-density pine/lowland areas have patchier fixed service.
  • Fiber builds and 5G expansion are improving speeds, but affordability and distance from trunks remain adoption barriers.
  • Public library Wi‑Fi and mobile hotspots are meaningful access points for lower‑income and remote residents.

These figures synthesize recent ACS and Pew adoption benchmarks applied to Sussex County’s population and geography.

Mobile phone usage in Sussex County, Virginia — snapshot and trends

Context

• Population: roughly 10.5–11.0 thousand residents, with an unusually large institutionalized population (two state correctional facilities). Household (civilian) population is the relevant base for consumer mobile usage.
• Settlement pattern: predominantly rural with small towns (Waverly, Wakefield, Stony Creek) and major transport corridors (I‑95, US‑460).

User estimates (civilian residents)

• Adult mobile phone users (any mobile): approximately 6,300–6,700 residents. Basis: household adult population size and rural cellphone ownership rates in line with Pew and CDC telephone-status data for rural areas (mid‑90%).
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 5,400–5,800 residents. Basis: rural smartphone ownership typically around the low‑80% range, tapering modestly with age and income.
• Smartphone‑dependent internet users: materially higher than the Virginia average due to lower wireline broadband availability. A substantial minority of households use cellular data as their primary internet connection.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: An older age profile than the state pulls down overall smartphone penetration and raises basic/feature‑phone retention among seniors. Younger adults mirror statewide behavior (near‑universal mobile, very high smartphone use), but the county’s older share keeps the overall rate below Virginia’s average.
• Income: Median household income is below the Virginia median, which correlates with higher prepaid adoption, more shared/family plans, and greater smartphone‑only internet use. Affordability programs (now sunset) were widely used; their lapse tends to increase reliance on mobile data over home broadband in lower‑income households.
• Race/ethnicity: A majority Black population combined with lower fixed‑broadband coverage is associated (per national usage research) with higher smartphone dependence for everyday internet tasks, even when overall device ownership is slightly below the state average.
• Institutions: The sizable incarcerated population is not part of the consumer mobile market. Using total population without this adjustment would understate per‑resident adoption compared with peer counties.

Digital infrastructure

• Coverage and carriers: Verizon, AT&T, and T‑Mobile all serve the county. 5G is strongest along I‑95 and US‑460 and in/near towns; interior, forested, and low‑lying areas still fall back to LTE or experience weak signal. FirstNet (AT&T) provides public‑safety coverage on main corridors and population centers.
• 5G rollout quality: Mid‑band 5G (Verizon C‑band, T‑Mobile 2.5 GHz) is present on or near the interstate and select sites; low‑band 5G/LTE dominates in much of the interior. This yields a corridor‑versus‑interior performance gap that is wider than in most suburban Virginia counties.
• Speeds and experience: Where mid‑band 5G is available, real‑world speeds commonly jump to triple‑digit Mbps; away from those sectors, LTE or low‑band 5G often delivers single‑ to low‑double‑digit Mbps with higher latency. Indoor coverage varies by structure and distance from highway‑adjacent towers.
• Backhaul and tower density: Sparse macro‑tower grid typical of rural Virginia. Upgrades have prioritized highway sites; interior sectors await additional infill or small‑cell solutions, especially for consistent in‑building service.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Wireline 100/20 Mbps availability is materially below the statewide level, although recent VATI/BEAD‑aligned fiber builds by regional providers and cooperatives are expanding. Until those builds are complete, mobile networks carry a heavier share of day‑to‑day connectivity in Sussex than in most Virginia localities.

How Sussex County trends differ from Virginia overall

• Lower overall smartphone penetration but higher smartphone dependence: The county likely trails Virginia’s ~90% adult smartphone ownership by several points, yet a larger share of households rely on mobile data as their primary internet.
• Larger coverage and speed disparity inside the county: Service is strong on I‑95/US‑460; interior areas see more variability than typical suburban/urban Virginia counties, producing greater within‑county inequity in mobile experience.
• Prepaid and budget plans more prominent: Price sensitivity is higher than the state average, nudging adoption toward prepaid and MVNO offerings and driving careful data‑budgeting behavior.
• Device mix: A small but noticeable retention of basic/feature phones among seniors versus the state average.
• Growth trajectory: Improvements hinge on continuing 5G mid‑band densification off the highway corridors and completion of fiber builds. As wireline coverage improves, some smartphone‑only households are likely to shift to bundled broadband, narrowing—but not eliminating—the county/state gap.

Key takeaways

• Approximately 6.3–6.7k adult residents use a mobile phone, with roughly 5.4–5.8k using smartphones.
• Smartphone ownership is a bit lower than Virginia’s average, but smartphone‑dependent internet use is higher due to gaps in wireline availability and income constraints.
• 5G coverage is present and fast along major corridors but remains inconsistent away from them; this corridor bias is more pronounced than statewide.
• Near‑term improvements depend on continued mid‑band 5G expansion beyond highways and on the pace of ongoing fiber deployments that can offload everyday data demand from mobile networks.

Social media usage in Sussex County, Virginia (2025 snapshot)

What these numbers represent

• County-level platform statistics are not directly published. Figures below are modeled for Sussex County by weighting Pew Research Center’s 2024 US platform adoption by age and gender to the county’s older, rural profile (ACS 2022), and adjusted for rural broadband adoption. Percentages refer to adult internet users in Sussex County unless noted.

Overall user stats

• Adults using at least one social platform: 76–82%
• Daily social media users (any platform): 60–68%
• Multi-platform users (3+ platforms): 40–48%
• Typical time spent: 1.5–2.5 hours/day

Age-group usage (share of adults in each band who use social media)

• 18–29: 95–98%
• 30–49: 87–92%
• 50–64: 70–78%
• 65+: 50–58% Note: Sussex County’s older age mix pulls overall usage slightly below the national average.

Gender breakdown (share of social media users and platform skews)

• Overall social media user mix: female 52–55%, male 45–48%
• Platform skews:
  • Facebook: female +6–10 percentage points
  • Instagram: female +2–6 pp
  • TikTok: female +4–8 pp
  • Pinterest: female +30+ pp
  • YouTube: male +6–10 pp
  • X (Twitter): male +6–10 pp

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adult internet users)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–72%
• Instagram: 38–45%
• Pinterest: 32–38%
• TikTok: 26–33%
• Snapchat: 22–28%
• X (Twitter): 18–24%
• LinkedIn: 14–20% Notes:
• Facebook usage is reinforced by local Groups and Marketplace.
• Among teens (13–17), TikTok and Snapchat are much higher (each ~60–70%+), driven by messaging and short-form video.

Behavioral trends in Sussex County

• Community-first behavior: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups for school updates, church events, local news, yard sales, and county services. Marketplace is a primary local commerce channel.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger dominates for day-to-day communication; SMS remains strong; WhatsApp usage is niche but growing in family and work groups.
• Video consumption over creation: Short-form video (YouTube Shorts, Facebook Reels, TikTok) is widely watched; a smaller share produces content. Cross-posted Reels from Instagram perform well on Facebook locally.
• Commerce and discovery: Residents frequently use Facebook/Instagram to discover local small businesses, food trucks, contractors, and events; high engagement with deal posts, giveaways, and limited-time offers.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 p.m.) and Sunday afternoons; weekday mid-mornings are secondary peaks for older users.
• Trust and authenticity: Content from known community members, local officials, schools, and churches outperforms anonymous pages. Photos of recognizable places/people lift shares.
• Ad effectiveness: Geo-targeted boosts (10–15 mile radius around Waverly/Jarratt/Stony Creek) convert well. Clear, service-oriented creatives and click-to-call CTAs outperform long-form copy. For younger adults, short, captioned vertical video drives top results.

Data inputs

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (platform adoption by age and gender)
• U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2022 (county age/sex profile)
• FCC/BroadbandNow 2023–2024 snapshots (rural broadband availability)