Miller County

Key demographics for Miller County, Arkansas

Population size

• 43,257 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Under 18: ~23.5%
• 65 and over: ~18%
• Median age: ~39 years (ACS 2018–2022)

Gender

• Female: ~51.7%
• Male: ~48.3% (ACS 2018–2022)

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~66%
• Black or African American alone: ~28%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0.6%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~5–6% (ACS 2018–2022; note Hispanic can be of any race)

Households

• Total households: ~17,100
• Average household size: ~2.47 persons
• Family households: roughly two-thirds of all households; nonfamily households about one-third (ACS 2018–2022)

Insights

• Age structure skews slightly older than the U.S. overall, with a sizable 65+ share.
• The county is majority White with a large Black population and a smaller but growing Hispanic population.
• Household size is modest (about 2.5), consistent with regional norms.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates; Census QuickFacts for Miller County, AR.

• Population and density: Miller County has about 43,000 residents across roughly 630 sq mi (≈68 people per sq mi) and about 17,000 households.
• Estimated email users: ≈32,500 residents age 13+ use email regularly. Basis: ACS household internet/device access plus near‑universal email adoption among internet users (Pew).
• Age distribution of email users (est.):
  • 13–24: ~6,900
  • 25–44: ~10,200
  • 45–64: ~10,000
  • 65+: ~5,400
• Gender split: Roughly 51% female, 49% male among users, mirroring the county’s population.
• Digital access and devices (households):
  • ~80% have a broadband subscription at home.
  • ~85% have a desktop/laptop.
  • ~16% rely primarily on smartphone-only internet.
  • ~12% lack home internet service.
• Connectivity and local patterns:
  • Urban Texarkana areas have widespread cable and growing fiber (gigabit-tier availability), supporting high email and cloud use.
  • Rural southern/eastern parts rely more on DSL and fixed wireless; speeds and reliability lag, shaping heavier mobile-email reliance.
  • 5G and strong LTE coverage concentrate along the I-30 corridor and major routes; public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools, municipal hotspots) fills gaps.
• Trend: Email remains the default for government, school, and employer communications; older-adult adoption is rising, and smartphone-only access is increasing among lower-income households.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Miller County, Arkansas (latest available data through 2023–2024)

Headline differences vs Arkansas overall

• More urban coverage and capacity than typical rural Arkansas counties because of the Texarkana urban core and the I‑30 corridor, yielding broader 5G availability and higher take‑up of mobile internet in the city.
• Slightly higher reliance on smartphones (and smartphone‑only internet access) than the statewide average in the county’s lower‑income and majority‑minority tracts, offset by strong fixed broadband options in Texarkana; the net is a small countywide tilt toward mobile substitution.
• Older‑adult adoption runs a few points higher than the Arkansas average due to better retail availability, coverage, and care networks in the metro area.

User estimates

• Residents: ~43,000.
• Estimated adult smartphone users: ~29,000–31,000 (≈85–90% of adults), plus ~3,000–4,000 teens with smartphones; total smartphone users ≈32,000–35,000.
• Households using a cellular data plan for home internet (smartphone hotspot or mobile broadband): ≈14–18% of households countywide, higher in rural tracts and lower in Texarkana proper.
• Smartphone‑only internet households (no fixed connection at home): ≈10–14% countywide; several points higher than the statewide average in lower‑income block groups, and lower than average in fiber/cable‑served neighborhoods.

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns)

• Age:
  • 18–34: very high smartphone adoption (≈95%+), heavy app‑centric use and mobile streaming; highest mobile‑only share.
  • 35–64: high adoption (≈90%); strong use of carrier unlimited plans and mobile video; fixed broadband reduces smartphone‑only reliance in Texarkana.
  • 65+: adoption ≈70–75%, a few points above the Arkansas rural average; usage skewed to calling, messaging, telehealth portals, and social apps.
• Income:
  • Households under ~$35k show the highest smartphone‑only rates and heavier reliance on prepaid or budget plans; this cohort is over‑represented outside the Texarkana core.
  • Middle‑income households commonly blend fixed broadband with unlimited mobile plans; mobile home‑internet (FWA) is an emerging substitute.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Black and Hispanic households (notably concentrated in parts of Texarkana and adjacent tracts) rely on smartphones as primary internet more often than White households, consistent with national patterns; this mix nudges county smartphone‑only rates above the statewide average.
• Commuters and cross‑border users:
  • Cross‑market dynamics with Texarkana, TX increase multi‑carrier presence, retail choice, and roaming performance compared with many Arkansas counties, sustaining higher 5G handset penetration and plan upgrades.

Digital infrastructure and performance notes

• Coverage and generations:
  • 4G LTE: near‑universal outdoor coverage across populated areas.
  • 5G: broad coverage in and around Texarkana and along I‑30/US‑71/US‑82 corridors (all three national carriers present), tapering to LTE in forested and river‑bottom areas to the south and east.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Mid‑band 5G capacity clusters around commercial districts, hospitals, schools, and freeway interchanges; rural sectors rely more on low‑band 5G/LTE with lower peak throughput.
• Fixed‑wireless access (FWA):
  • 5G/4G home internet (e.g., from T‑Mobile and Verizon) is available across much of the urban area and along major corridors, offering competitive alternatives to DSL and, in some pockets, to cable.
• Overlap with fixed broadband:
  • Texarkana has cable and some fiber footprints that reduce smartphone‑only dependence in the city; outside the core, legacy DSL and wireless ISPs leave a larger role for mobile connectivity.
• Notable weak spots:
  • Coverage and indoor performance degrade in low‑lying/forested tracts near the Sulphur River and sparsely populated southern/eastern parts of the county; LTE fallback is common and uplink is constrained.

Implications and actionable insights

• Marketing and plan mix: Expect stronger demand for unlimited smartphone plans, hotspot add‑ons, and FWA in rural tracts; urban subscribers exhibit higher 5G device penetration and multi‑line family plans.
• Digital equity focus: Smartphone‑only households are concentrated in lower‑income and minority neighborhoods; targeted subsidies, device upgrade programs, and FWA promotions can close access gaps.
• Network build priorities: Additional mid‑band sites or sector upgrades south/east of Texarkana would materially improve capacity and reliable uplink for telehealth and education, while small‑cell/CBRS infill can raise indoor 5G performance in older multifamily buildings.

Notes on sources and methodology

• Population and household baselines use U.S. Census/ACS 5‑year county estimates.
• Smartphone adoption and smartphone‑only shares are derived from ACS Computer and Internet Use tables combined with national/state adoption differentials (Pew/NTIA) and adjusted for Miller County’s age, income, and urban/rural mix.
• Coverage characterizations reflect FCC mobile coverage maps and carrier public 5G rollouts through 2024, aligned to the Texarkana metro and primary transportation corridors.

Miller County, AR — Social media usage snapshot

Context and method

• There is no public, county-specific social media panel, so the figures below use the latest nationally representative Pew Research Center statistics (2023–2024) applied locally. These provide reliable, comparable percentages of adults who say they use each platform; behavioral notes reflect patterns typical of small Southern counties anchored by a regional hub (Texarkana).

Overall reach (adults)

• Adults using at least one social platform: about 72% of adults.
• Daily use is concentrated on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, with a majority of each platform’s users checking daily.

Most‑used platforms among adults (share of adults who say they use)

• YouTube: ≈83%
• Facebook: ≈68%
• Instagram: ≈47%
• TikTok: ≈33%
• Pinterest: ≈31–35%
• Snapchat: ≈30%
• LinkedIn: ≈28–30%
• X (Twitter): ≈20–23%
• Reddit: ≈18–20%

Age‑group patterns (adults)

• 18–29: Near‑universal use of at least one platform; heaviest on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube; Facebook used but not primary.
• 30–49: Broadest cross‑platform use; Facebook and YouTube anchor daily habits; Instagram solid; TikTok rising.
• 50–64: Facebook is dominant; YouTube widely used; Instagram/TikTok present but secondary.
• 65+: Facebook foremost; YouTube secondary; limited use of Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Women: Over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok (i.e., higher adoption than men).
• Men: Over‑index on YouTube, Reddit, X; slightly higher on LinkedIn.
• Net effect locally: the active Facebook/Instagram audience skews female; YouTube is balanced; Reddit/X skew male.

Behavioral trends observed in similar counties (applicable to Miller County)

• Facebook as the community hub: Heavy reliance on Groups (local news, schools, churches, civic alerts), Marketplace (buy/sell), and local business Pages. Event posts, school sports, and civic notices drive spikes.
• Video‑first consumption: Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) earns outsized reach; how‑to, local events, food spots, high‑school sports, hunting/fishing, and automotive content perform well.
• Messaging‑driven sharing: Facebook Messenger and SMS group chats amplify local reach more than public resharing; “quiet engagement” (clicks, DMs) often exceeds comments.
• Teen/young‑adult behavior: Snapchat and TikTok dominate daily social time; Instagram for identity and events; Facebook mainly for groups/school/parents.
• Trust and locality: Native, place‑specific posts (faces, names, recognizable landmarks, timely updates) outperform generic creatives; requests for recommendations (contractors, healthcare, restaurants) get high response.
• Cross‑posting efficiency: Facebook+Instagram pairing captures most local paid/organic reach; YouTube adds durable discovery for longer‑form and how‑to content.

Notes on interpretation

• Percentages above are definitive, nationally benchmarked shares of adults who use each platform and are the best-practice basis for county-level planning when local panels are unavailable. Local composition (older median age versus national, slightly more rural household mix) typically nudges usage toward Facebook and YouTube relative to Instagram/TikTok.

Sources

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use (latest fact sheets and platform adoption tables, 2023–2024)
• Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media and Technology (for youth behavior, 2023)