Armstrong County

Here are the latest high-level demographics for Armstrong County, Texas.

Population

• Total: 1,848 (2020 Census)
• 2023 estimate: ~1,830 (Census Bureau, Vintage 2023)

Age

• Median age: ~46 years
• Under 18: ~23%
• 65 and over: ~22%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive; ACS)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~78%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~17%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~0–1%
• Two or more races/other (non-Hispanic): ~2–3%

Households (ACS)

• Total households: ~780–800
• Average household size: ~2.3–2.4
• Family households: ~65–70% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~25–30%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (Vintage 2023). Figures rounded; small counties have larger margins of error.

Armstrong County, TX snapshot (estimates):

• Population and density: ~1,850 residents (2020), about 2 people per square mile; most live in/around Claude, with very sparse ranchland settlements.
• Estimated email users: 1,400–1,600 residents (roughly 75–85%), reflecting high adult adoption and some gaps from rural connectivity.
• Age distribution of email use:
  • Teens (13–17): 50–70% use email (school-driven).
  • 18–34: ~95% use email; near-universal among college/workforce.
  • 35–64: ~90% use email.
  • 65+: ~65–80% use email; lower among the oldest and most remote.
• Gender split: Roughly even; male/female email adoption differs by only a few percentage points.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Home broadband adoption likely ~70–80% of households; fiber is limited outside town centers. Many rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Smartphone reliance is high; a growing share are mobile-only for internet/email.
  • LTE/5G coverage is strongest along major corridors (e.g., US‑287) with patchier service in outlying ranch areas.
  • Ongoing state/federal rural broadband initiatives are expected to improve fixed connectivity through 2025–2028.

Notes: Figures are inferred from rural Texas/Panhandle patterns and national email usage norms applied to local population size.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Armstrong County, Texas (focus on how it differs from Texas overall)

Quick context

• Rural Panhandle county centered on Claude; population just under 2,000 and spread over a large land area. Terrain includes breaks and canyons that create RF shadows. Daily travel to Amarillo is common for work, school, and services.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, based on rural adoption patterns and county population)

• Adult mobile users: roughly 1,250–1,350 adults with a mobile phone (about 88–92% of adults).
• Smartphone users: roughly 1,050–1,200 adults with a smartphone (about 75–82% of adults; below the Texas average, which is typically mid-to-high 80s).
• Teens (13–17) with phones: on the order of 100–140, with smartphone use around 80–90%.
• Household reliance: a noticeably higher share of households use mobile hotspots or phone tethering as primary/backup home internet compared to the Texas average, due to limited wireline options outside Claude and corridors.

Demographic shape of usage (distinct from state-level)

• Older population mix: larger 55+ and 65+ shares than Texas overall. Effects:
  • Slightly lower smartphone adoption and slower upgrade cycles (3–5 years vs 2–3 in metro Texas).
  • Greater retention of voice/SMS habits; video calling and high-bandwidth mobile apps are less dominant than in urban Texas.
• Race/ethnicity: predominantly non-Hispanic White; smaller Hispanic share than the state average. Language-driven device/app patterns (e.g., WhatsApp) are less pronounced than in many Texas metros.
• Income and education: below Texas averages, contributing to:
  • Higher use of prepaid/MVNO plans and lower-cost Android devices.
  • More conservative data usage and careful traffic management (Wi‑Fi offload when available).

Digital infrastructure (how it differs)

• Coverage pattern:
  • Strongest along US‑287, TX‑207, and in/around Claude; coverage thins rapidly on ranch roads and in canyon breaks.
  • Tower density is sparse; low-band LTE/5G (700/850 MHz) does most of the work. Indoor signal challenges are common in metal-roof structures; boosters and external antennas are used more than in urban Texas.
• 5G reality:
  • Low-band 5G present on major corridors; mid-band 5G (e.g., C-band/2.5 GHz) is limited and concentrated near travel routes; mmWave is effectively nonexistent. Net result: speeds and capacity trail Texas metro norms.
• Carrier landscape:
  • AT&T and Verizon tend to be the most dependable across backroads; T‑Mobile performs best along primary routes and in town but can fall off faster in the open country.
  • Public safety makes use of FirstNet (AT&T), which often sets the “most reliable” baseline where it’s been prioritized—another rural difference from consumer-driven metro buildouts.
• Backhaul and resilience:
  • More microwave backhaul than fiber compared with cities; severe weather and power events can impact capacity/uptime more noticeably than in metro Texas.
• Home broadband interplay:
  • Limited cable/fiber outside town centers; fixed wireless and satellite (Starlink and geostationary) have higher uptake than the state average.
  • Consequently, mobile hotspots substitute for home internet more often than in Texas cities and suburbs.

Usage patterns and trends that diverge from the Texas average

• Adoption and upgrades:
  • Smartphone penetration and 5G device penetration are lower; replacement cycles are longer.
• Data consumption:
  • A larger minority of households are “mobile-only” for internet, but per‑user mobile data consumption is often lower than in cities because of speed/coverage limits and prepaid plan choices.
• App mix:
  • Heavier reliance on voice/SMS and asynchronous messaging; less mobile video streaming/gaming on cellular than in metro areas.
• Multi-carrier strategies:
  • More dual‑SIM or family plans split across carriers, plus use of signal boosters, to navigate dead zones—less common in urban Texas.
• Daytime mobility:
  • Weekday demand shifts toward Amarillo; users experience a patchwork of strong urban performance during the day and weaker rural performance at home, unlike more consistent metro experiences elsewhere.

Near-term outlook (12–24 months)

• Expect incremental improvements: additional sectors or upgrades on existing sites along US‑287/TX‑207; selective mid-band 5G expansions; some WISPs moving to CBRS; continued satellite adoption for home internet.
• Even with upgrades, the county is likely to remain below state averages in 5G capacity, indoor coverage, and median mobile speeds, with rural topography continuing to create localized dead zones.

Notes on uncertainty

• Figures are estimates derived from known rural adoption rates, census-scale population, and typical Panhandle infrastructure patterns. Exact counts (e.g., towers, subscribers per carrier) fluctuate and are not publicly itemized at the county level.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for Armstrong County, TX (small, rural population) using county demographics plus recent Pew Research Center U.S. social-media findings and rural Texas patterns. Treat figures as directional ranges rather than exact counts.

Snapshot

• Estimated active social media users: 65–75% of adults (roughly 1.1k–1.4k adults), plus most teens.
• Device mix: smartphone-first (≈80–90% of users access primarily via phone); home broadband is patchier than state urban averages, so mobile data use is high.

Age groups (estimated share using at least one platform)

• 13–17: 85–95% (heavy on TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; Instagram rising via Reels)
• 18–29: 85–95% (YouTube, Instagram, TikTok; Snapchat for messaging)
• 30–49: 75–85% (Facebook, YouTube; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing)
• 50–64: 65–75% (Facebook and YouTube dominant; Pinterest among women)
• 65+: 45–55% (mostly Facebook; YouTube for news/how‑to, church services)

Gender breakdown (patterns among local users)

• Overall participation: roughly even by gender.
• Platform skews:
  • Women: Facebook strong; Pinterest notable; Instagram moderate.
  • Men: YouTube strongest; X (Twitter) and Reddit small but male‑skewed.
  • Messaging: Facebook Messenger common across genders; Snapchat among younger users.

Most‑used platforms (share of adult social users in the county; estimates)

• Facebook: 70–80%
• YouTube: 70–80%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (mostly under 30)
• Pinterest: 20–25% (female‑skewed)
• WhatsApp: 10–15% (lower than Texas urban average)
• X (Twitter): 10–15% (used for sports/weather/news)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (professional niche)
• Reddit/Nextdoor: 5–10% and <5% respectively

Behavioral trends

• Facebook as the community hub: local news, school sports, church updates, fundraisers, lost‑and‑found, buy/sell/Trade via Marketplace and Groups.
• Event and emergency info: spikes during severe weather, wildfires, road closures; users follow county offices, TxDOT, local media pages.
• Video habits: YouTube for ag/ranch DIY, equipment repair, hunting/fishing, sermons, and how‑to content; short‑form (Reels/TikTok) consumption growing.
• Shopping and classifieds: heavy Facebook Marketplace use for farm/ranch gear, vehicles, household items; trust driven by known local profiles.
• Messaging over posting: younger users rely on Snapchat/Instagram DMs; adults on Messenger; group chats for schools, teams, churches.
• Timing: morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch, and evening (7–10 p.m.) engagement peaks; weekend spikes around games, fairs, rodeos, and auctions.
• Privacy/community norms: preference for closed groups; high engagement with recognizable local leaders and organizations; skepticism of anonymous accounts.
• Overlap with Amarillo media market: some follow Amarillo TV/radio pages for broader news and weather.

Notes on methodology

• Percentages extrapolated from recent Pew U.S. adoption rates, adjusted toward rural Texas patterns and small‑county demographics; exact county‑level platform data are not published.