Andrews County

Andrews County, Texas – key demographics

Population

• 18,610 (2020 Census)
• ~19,000 (2023 Census Population Estimates Program)

Age

• Median age: ~31 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~32%
• 65 and over: ~10%

Sex

• Male: ~53%
• Female: ~47%

Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive; ACS 2018–2022)

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~61%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~33%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~3%
• Other/Multiracial, non-Hispanic (includes AIAN, Asian, NHPI, two+): ~3%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~6,000
• Average household size: ~3.0
• Family households: ~75–77% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~45%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; 2023 Population Estimates Program). Figures are estimates and subject to margins of error.

Andrews County, TX snapshot (estimates):

• Population and density: ~19,000 residents across ~1,500 sq mi (≈13 people/sq mi). Most live in the City of Andrews.
• Estimated email users: 12,000–14,000 residents use email at least monthly.
  • Basis: ~85–90% of adults and a majority of teens use email; adoption lower among the oldest adults.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users):
  • 13–17: 5–7%
  • 18–34: 30–35%
  • 35–54: 35–40%
  • 55–64: 12–15%
  • 65+: 10–12%
• Gender split:
  • County population skews slightly male due to energy-sector employment; email usage is near parity—roughly 50/50 male/female among users.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Strongest fixed broadband and fiber/cable coverage in Andrews; outside town many rely on LTE/5G, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Smartphone-first access is common; a noticeable share of households are smartphone-only.
  • Adoption lags availability in rural areas, with cost and credit constraints as key barriers; public Wi‑Fi via schools, library, and city facilities helps fill gaps.
  • Regional connectivity benefits from Permian Basin infrastructure and highway corridors (US‑385/TX‑115), but last‑mile options thin out quickly beyond town.

Notes: Figures are derived from Census/ACS county population and typical U.S./Texas rural adoption patterns.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Andrews County, Texas (with emphasis on what differs from statewide patterns)

Headline estimates (order-of-magnitude, method noted)

• Population baseline: about 19,000 people (2020–2023 range). Using national/state adoption norms adjusted for rural West Texas, estimate:
  • Any mobile phone users: 16,500–18,000 (roughly 88–95% of residents).
  • Smartphone users: 15,000–16,500 (roughly 80–87% of residents).
  • Method: applied rural U.S./Texas cell and smartphone ownership rates (Pew-type benchmarks) and a modest upward adjustment for oilfield workers’ mobile dependence and teens’ high smartphone uptake.
• Multi-line/device users: higher than Texas average due to work-issued phones/hotspots in oil and gas; 10–15% of working adults likely carry a second line or device at least part-time.

How Andrews County differs from Texas overall

• Heavier reliance on mobile for primary internet: A larger share of households use mobile hotspots or phone tethering as their main home connection, especially outside the city of Andrews, due to sparse fixed broadband outside town limits.
• Coverage quality > choice: Residents prioritize the carrier that “works on the lease road” or ranch, not price alone. AT&T and Verizon tend to be favored in fringe/rural spots; T-Mobile’s mid-band 5G has improved but remains more corridor-focused than in metros.
• Work-driven usage: Above-average use of push-to-talk, group messaging, ruggedized handsets, and line-of-business apps tied to oilfield operations; more weekday daytime and shift-change congestion versus the more evening-entertainment pattern common in cities.
• Prepaid and cross-border mobility: Prepaid and month-to-month plans are relatively popular among contract workers. The county’s proximity to Lea County, NM, also yields occasional roaming behavior and mixed network footprints along western routes.
• 5G adoption pattern: 5G is present but more patchy and band-limited (mid-band and low-band) compared with Texas metros. mmWave is largely absent; performance hinges on carrier aggregation and backhaul at a small number of macro sites.
• Language and app mix: With a larger Hispanic share than the Texas average, WhatsApp calling/messaging and Spanish-language customer support and content are more central to everyday use.

Demographic usage notes (directional, based on county profile)

• Age and workforce: A relatively young, male-skewed working-age population tied to the Permian Basin elevates smartphone and hotspot use for work navigation, dispatch, HSE compliance, and timekeeping apps. Younger households lean to mobile-only broadband.
• Hispanic households: Roughly half to three-fifths of residents are Hispanic (well above the Texas average). Device and plan choices often emphasize cross-platform messaging (WhatsApp), family plan sharing, and budget-friendly Android devices.
• Income/volatility: Oilfield earnings can be high but cyclical; users may cycle between premium postpaid during booms and prepaid/value plans during slowdowns. Device replacement is more about durability and battery life than brand-new flagships.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Macro coverage
  • Corridors: Stronger site density along US-385, SH-115, and SH-176, with coverage thinning on ranch and lease roads.
  • Carriers: AT&T and Verizon typically provide the broadest rural LTE/low-band 5G footprint; T-Mobile has expanded low-/mid-band 5G along main routes but can be inconsistent off-corridor.
  • FirstNet: Public-safety coverage generally follows AT&T’s macro grid across highways and populated areas; oilfield responders often rely on it, but deep-field coverage still depends on specific sites.
• Capacity and backhaul
  • Fewer total sectors per square mile than metro Texas; several sites rely on microwave backhaul, making them more sensitive to peak-hour slowdowns (e.g., shift changes).
  • Mid-band 5G upgrades have improved speeds near town and along arteries, but capacity can dip quickly a few miles off-corridor.
• Private and specialized networks
  • Oilfield operators and service firms increasingly deploy CBRS-based private LTE on pads and yards for telemetry, video, and worker comms; these coexist with public-carrier LTE/5G.
  • Starlink and other LEO satellite services are widely used for field offices, man camps, and rural homesteads, often offloading phone traffic via Wi‑Fi calling.
• Fixed broadband context
  • In-town residents may have cable or fiber options; outside town, choices narrow to DSL, fixed wireless ISPs, or satellite—driving higher reliance on mobile broadband than the Texas average.
  • Public Wi‑Fi hotspots are concentrated in schools, libraries, and municipal buildings; less prevalent than in larger Texas cities.

Behavioral and device trends to watch

• Android share likely above Texas metro averages, driven by price, durability, and dual-SIM options.
• Hotspot add-ons and unlimited-with-throttle plans are common; data consumption skews toward navigation, field apps, and compressed video rather than constant 4K streaming.
• IoT and telematics growth (asset tracking, sensors, dash cams) adds background LTE traffic unique to oilfield economies.

What this means for planners and providers

• Network investments that matter most locally: more macro/sectors off main corridors, stronger microwave/fiber backhaul to existing sites, and targeted mid-band 5G overlays in known congestion zones.
• Retail strategy: emphasize coverage reliability, rugged devices, Spanish-language support, flexible prepaid/postpaid transitions, and generous hotspot/tethering options.
• Community impact: Mobile-centric strategies (subsidized hotspots, signal boosters, and Wi‑Fi offload) will close more practical gaps than fiber-only approaches in the near term outside the city of Andrews.

Note on figures: Because county-level mobile statistics aren’t directly published, the user counts above are modeled from Census/ACS population and national/Texas mobile adoption studies, adjusted for rural West Texas and the county’s oilfield workforce profile.

Andrews County, TX social media snapshot (2025 estimates)

How many use social media

• Population baseline: ~19,000 residents; ~14,500 adults (ACS/Census-based).
• Social media users: 13,000–14,500 people (70–75% of total population; 80–85% of adults).

Age groups (share using at least one platform)

• 13–17: 90–95%
• 18–29: 95%+
• 30–49: 85–90%
• 50–64: 70–75%
• 65+: 50–55%

Gender breakdown

• Overall usage is roughly even male/female.
• Platform tilts: Facebook and Pinterest skew female; YouTube and Reddit skew male; Instagram/TikTok slightly female; Snapchat female-leaning among teens/young adults.

Most-used platforms among local social media users

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–60%
• Instagram: 45–50%
• TikTok: 40–45%
• Snapchat: 35–40% (notably high among 13–24)
• WhatsApp: 30–35% (higher among Hispanic families)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (women 25–54)
• X (Twitter): 20–25% (news, sports)
• Reddit: 15–20%
• LinkedIn: 12–18%

Behavioral trends to know

• Community first: Facebook Groups/Pages and Marketplace are the daily hub for local news, school updates, buy/sell, lost-and-found, and service referrals.
• Video-forward: YouTube for how‑to, auto/DIY, ranching, and equipment content; short‑form clips via IG Reels/TikTok for entertainment and local highlights (e.g., high school sports).
• Messaging habits: Messenger and WhatsApp power family and work group chats; WhatsApp use boosted by bilingual/Spanish-speaking households.
• When they’re active: Peaks before shifts and evenings (about 6–8 a.m. and 7–10 p.m.); Friday nights/weekends tied to games and community events.
• Content style: Practical, local, and trust-based. Posts from schools, churches, first responders, and known local businesses outperform national brands. Giveaways and sponsorships of youth sports perform well.
• Younger users: Heavy on Snapchat, TikTok, and IG; Facebook used mainly for groups/events. Private Stories and group chats are key.
• Older users: Facebook is primary; YouTube second; limited TikTok use.
• Language: Noticeable mix of English and Spanish across Facebook and WhatsApp.
• Ads that work: Short vertical video, geotargeted FB/IG campaigns, clear offers for home/auto services, oilfield-adjacent trades, and seasonal promos.

Notes and method

• County-level platform stats aren’t directly published; figures are derived from Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. adoption rates and DataReportal U.S. benchmarks, adjusted for rural West Texas demographics and ACS population structure. Treat as directional estimates.