Anderson County

What reference year/source would you like? I can report:

• 2020 Decennial Census (best for total population and race/ethnicity), and/or
• ACS 5-year estimates (e.g., 2018–2022) for age, sex, and household data.

Also, do you want figures for the total population (includes the large incarcerated population in Anderson County, which notably skews sex and age) or for the household (non-institutional) population?

Anderson County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~58,000; density ~55 people/sq mi (largely rural; hub: Palestine).
• Email users: ~40–45k residents use email; ~30–36k check daily. Method: applied national/adult adoption rates to local population.
• Age mix of email users:
  • 13–17: ~6% (≈2.5–3k)
  • 18–34: ~24–27%
  • 35–54: ~34–38%
  • 55–64: ~13–16%
  • 65+: ~12–16% (lower adoption than younger groups)
• Gender split: ~50/50; usage differences by gender are minimal.
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband subscription is roughly three-quarters of households, below Texas urban averages; smartphone-only internet reliance is higher than state average (~15–20% of adults).
  • Access is strongest in and around Palestine (cable/fiber and 5G/4G). Outside town, many homes rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite, with variable speeds and latency.
  • Coverage gaps can appear in wooded/rolling terrain; connectivity improves along major corridors (US-79/US-287).
  • The sunset of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (2024) likely increased cost sensitivity for low-income households.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from U.S./Texas adoption benchmarks and rural ACS indicators applied to Anderson County’s population; exact values vary by source and year.

Mobile phone usage in Anderson County, Texas — summary and how it differs from statewide patterns

Context note: Anderson County (~58,000 residents; county seat Palestine) has a large institutional population due to multiple state prisons near Tennessee Colony. Inmates are counted in population totals but do not participate in consumer mobile markets, which meaningfully skews per-capita metrics compared to most Texas counties.

User estimates (orders of magnitude; civilian, non‑institutional population focus)

• Smartphone users: roughly 30,000–40,000 people.
  • Method: apply ~78–85% adult smartphone adoption (lower than metro Texas due to age/income mix) plus high teen adoption to the civilian population; exclude incarcerated residents.
• Mobile-only home internet: about 12–20% of households rely primarily on cellular (phone tethering or hotspots) for home internet.
  • Rationale: fixed broadband gaps outside Palestine push above the Texas average, especially in low‑density areas.
• Prepaid vs. postpaid: prepaid lines likely account for a larger share than the state average (qualitatively higher, driven by lower median incomes, younger lines, and intermittent credit).
• Device mix: skew slightly more Android than the state average, reflecting price sensitivity; iOS share rises in/near Palestine.

Demographic patterns among users

• Age: seniors make up a larger share of the population than in Texas overall, which lowers smartphone penetration in the 65+ segment and increases basic/older-device use. Younger adults and families in Palestine show usage closer to statewide norms.
• Income and plan type: lower household incomes correlate with higher prepaid adoption, shared data plans, and greater dependence on mobile for home connectivity.
• Race/ethnicity: Black and Hispanic residents are more likely than White residents to rely on smartphones as their primary internet device, mirroring national patterns; in Anderson County this reliance is amplified by patchier fixed broadband in rural majority‑minority tracts.
• Incarceration effect: the county’s sizable prison population inflates headline population but contributes zero consumer lines; market-facing adoption rates are better assessed against the civilian, non‑institutional base.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage: 4G LTE is widespread; 5G low-band covers much of the county with mid-band 5G concentrated in and around Palestine and along major highways (US‑79/84/287). Rural pockets still fall back to LTE, with capacity constraints at peak times.
• Capacity/backhaul: outside Palestine, fewer fiber-fed macro sites and more microwave backhaul mean lower sector capacity per user than urban Texas. This limits 5G throughput and indoor coverage in heavily wooded areas.
• Tower density: macro towers cluster along highway corridors and near population centers; fewer small cells than in metro counties. Indoor coverage in metal-roof structures and bottomland areas can be weak without boosters.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Cable and some fiber in Palestine; DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite dominate many unincorporated areas. Where fixed service is costly or slow, households substitute with unlimited phone plans and hotspots.
• Public-safety/priority networks: FirstNet presence is reported countywide, but rural site spacing still governs real‑world reliability; agencies and schools often retain secondary connectivity (satellite or microwave) for redundancy.

What’s different from Texas overall

• Higher reliance on mobile for home internet: Anderson County’s share of mobile‑only households is meaningfully above the Texas average due to limited fixed options outside the city.
• More prepaid and budget plans: price sensitivity and credit access push plan mix toward prepaid compared with metro Texas.
• Older age structure and lower median income: these factors reduce top‑end smartphone penetration (especially among seniors) and slow 5G device turnover relative to the state average.
• Infrastructure density and performance: fewer fiber-fed cell sites per square mile and heavier foliage lead to more LTE fallback and lower median 5G speeds than in urban/suburban Texas.
• Data interpretation nuance: the large institutional (prison) population makes raw per‑capita line counts look lower than they are for the civilian market—an atypical divergence from most Texas counties.

Notes on estimation

• Population and household characteristics are based on recent ACS/Census patterns; infrastructure patterns reflect carrier buildouts, FCC broadband mapping, and typical rural East Texas deployments. Ranges are given where precise local subscription data are not published.

Below is an estimate-based snapshot. True, platform-level metrics are not published for a single U.S. county; figures use Pew Research Center 2024 (U.S. adults, with rural adjustments), Edison Research Infinite Dial 2024, and ACS demographics to localize likely usage for Anderson County’s non‑institutionalized residents.

Overall user stats (estimated)

• Social media penetration (13+): 65–75% use at least one platform
• Active users: roughly 32,000–40,000 people
• Device mix: smartphone primary (>85% of users); desktop secondary; home broadband lower than urban average, so mobile data is important

Age-group usage rates (share of each age group using social media)

• 18–29: 88–95%
• 30–49: 80–88%
• 50–64: 68–76%
• 65+: 45–55%

Gender breakdown (among users)

• Female: ~52–55%
• Male: ~45–48% Note: The county’s overall population skews male due to incarcerated residents, who generally aren’t part of the online audience; the figures above reflect the civilian online user base.

Most‑used platforms locally (share of residents 13+; est.)

• YouTube: 70–78%
• Facebook: 63–72%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 27–35%
• Snapchat: 20–28% (concentrated under 30)
• Pinterest: 28–36% (skews female)
• WhatsApp: 12–20% (family/church groups; some bilingual use)
• X (Twitter): 12–18% (news/sports niche)
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (below U.S. average)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (patchy outside denser neighborhoods)

Behavioral trends

• Community-first: Facebook Groups are central for local news, school updates, churches, youth sports, buy/sell/trade; Marketplace is heavily used.
• Video-led: YouTube for how‑to, local sports/highlights; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) drives younger engagement and local food/retail discovery.
• Messaging over public posting: Younger users favor DMs, Stories, Snaps over feed posts; older users comment/share in Groups.
• Timing: Evenings (7–10 p.m.) and weekends perform best; school/calendar events shift peaks seasonally.
• Content cues: Local faces/places, clear deals, service updates, and community causes outperform generic creative; event tie‑ins (games, fairs, holidays) lift CTR.
• Trust pathways: Many rely on school districts, city/county offices, and public‑safety pages on Facebook for alerts; word‑of‑mouth spreads via Messenger/Group chats.
• Shopping: Facebook/Instagram for discovery and Marketplace for transactions; younger buyers also browse TikTok Shop links but convert locally in‑store.

Notes

• Treat figures as directional. To tighten accuracy, combine page insights from major local pages (schools, city, chambers), a short resident survey, and ad-platform reach estimates (Meta, Google, Snap) targeted to county ZIPs.