Austin County

Austin County, Texas — key demographics

Population

• 2020 Census: 30,167
• ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimate: ~30,700

Age

• Median age: ~41
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Sex

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; rounded)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~57%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~29%
• Black/African American: ~10%
• Asian: ~1%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• Other (incl. American Indian/Alaska Native, NH/PI): <1%

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~11,300
• Average household size: ~2.7
• Family households: ~70% of households
• Married-couple households: ~53% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates. Figures are rounded and subject to ACS sampling error.

Austin County, TX (pop. ≈31,000) likely has 22,000–25,000 active email users, based on national adoption rates applied to local population. Email is near‑universal among adults; usage skews by age roughly as:

• 13–17: 70–85%
• 18–34: 95–98%
• 35–64: 96–99%
• 65+: 75–85% Gender split of email users is essentially even (county population ≈49% male, 51% female).

Digital access trends:

• Roughly 85–90% of households have a broadband subscription; 10–15% of adults are smartphone‑only internet users.
• Higher adoption and faster tiers are concentrated in towns (Sealy, Bellville, Wallis, San Felipe), with more limited fixed options in rural north/central areas; satellite and fixed wireless help fill gaps.
• Older and lower‑income residents are more likely to lack home broadband or rely on mobile data.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Density ≈45–50 people per square mile across ~650 sq. miles; service is strongest along the I‑10 corridor around Sealy and sparser in outlying areas.
• Library and school networks act as important public access points.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from ACS population structure and Pew/FCC adoption benchmarks; actual rates vary by neighborhood and provider footprint.

Here’s a concise, county-specific view built from ACS (demographics/households), Pew/NTIA adoption patterns, and carrier/FCC coverage trends. Figures are estimates; ranges reflect rural variability within the county.

Headline takeaways vs Texas overall

• Adoption is high but a few points lower than the state; reliance on mobile as a primary home connection is a few points higher than the state.
• 5G is widespread in towns/along I‑10 but mid‑band capacity is patchier than metro Texas; performance varies more by location and carrier.
• Older age structure and somewhat lower bachelor’s attainment temper high-end device/plan uptake; prepaid/MVNO use is a bit higher than the Texas average.

User estimates (Austin County, 2024–2025)

• Population: ≈32,000 residents; ≈24,000–26,000 adults.
• Adult mobile phone users (any mobile): ~23,000–25,000 (≈94–97% of adults).
• Adult smartphone users: ~21,000–23,000 (≈86–89% of adults; Texas ≈90–92%).
• Youth (6–17) with a mobile phone: ~2,500–3,500.
• Total mobile phone users (all ages): ~26,000–28,000.
• Households using “cellular data plan only” for home internet: roughly 18–22% of ~12,000–13,000 households (Texas ~14–18%).
• Prepaid/MVNO share of lines: likely 35–45% (Texas ~30–35%), reflecting price sensitivity and coverage-by-carrier differences.

Demographic shape of usage

• Age: The county skews older than Texas. Estimated smartphone ownership by age locally:
  • 18–29: ~96–98%
  • 30–49: ~93–96%
  • 50–64: ~85–90%
  • 65+: ~70–78% (Texas seniors ~75–82%) This pulls overall adoption a bit below the state average.
• Income/education: Median income near the state average, bachelor’s attainment lower than Texas overall. Correlates with:
  • Slightly higher prepaid/MVNO penetration.
  • More mobile-only home internet where wired options are limited.
• Race/ethnicity: Higher non-Hispanic White share and lower Hispanic share than Texas overall. Because Hispanic and Black Texans often report very high smartphone reliance, this composition contributes modestly to the county’s slightly lower aggregate rate—but the bigger drivers locally are age and rurality.
• Geography within the county:
  • Towns (Sealy, Bellville, Wallis) and the I‑10/US‑90/TX‑36 corridors show the highest 5G capacity and app usage intensity.
  • Northwestern and far-southern rural tracts see more LTE fallback, lower median speeds, and a higher share of households using mobile or fixed wireless as their primary internet.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage: 4G LTE is effectively universal on major roads; 5G low-band covers towns and most populated areas. Mid-band 5G (capacity layer) is strongest along I‑10 and in Sealy/Bellville, with gaps in outer rural tracts. Millimeter-wave is effectively absent.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Town centers/corridors: mid-band 5G often 150–400 Mbps down (higher off-peak).
  • Rural areas and bottomlands: LTE or low-band 5G more common; 10–40 Mbps down, higher latency.
  • Notable variability by carrier at the edges of coverage; residents often select carriers based on address-level signal rather than price/features.
• Sites/backhaul: Macro sites are concentrated along I‑10/US‑90/TX‑36 and near towns; rural spacing drives slower uplinks and more congestion at peak times. Backhaul upgrades tied to recent 5G spectrum builds have improved capacity along main corridors since 2022 but are uneven elsewhere.
• Home internet via mobile:
  • 5G fixed wireless (e.g., “home internet” products) is available to many addresses in Sealy/Bellville and along I‑10, with coverage thinning in outlying areas.
  • Multiple WISPs serve rural zones; cable/fiber availability is town-centric. Where wireline is limited, households lean on phone hotspots or 5G FWA, raising mobile data dependence above the state average.
• Reliability/traffic patterns:
  • Daytime demand peaks along commuter corridors and around schools/industrial sites.
  • Weather can impact fringe areas (foliage/terrain and river-adjacent tracts) more than in urban Texas, causing seasonal performance swings.

How Austin County differs from Texas trends

• Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration (≈86–89% vs ≈90–92%).
• Higher share of mobile-only households (≈18–22% vs ≈14–18%).
• Greater carrier-specific variability; residents more likely to choose based on coverage testing.
• Device mix skews slightly older (more LTE-only or budget 5G phones), impacting observed speeds.
• Infrastructure upgrades lag metro areas on mid-band 5G saturation; performance concentrates along I‑10 and in towns rather than being uniform countywide.

Notes on method

• Demographics from ACS 2019–2023 patterns for similar-sized Texas counties; adoption rates from Pew/NTIA applied to local age/education/income mix; coverage/capacity synthesized from carrier/FCC filings and known rural deployment norms. Figures are planning-grade estimates with credible ranges rather than address-level measurements.

Austin County, TX social media snapshot (modeled, county-scaled from U.S./Texas patterns; precise county-level reporting is limited)

Topline user stats

• Population: ~31,000
• Likely social media users: 20,000–23,000 residents (about 65–75% of total; roughly 78–85% of ages 13+)
• Device behavior: >90% mobile-first use; video is the dominant format across platforms

Age mix and participation

• Teens (13–17): very high use of TikTok/Snapchat; moderate Instagram/YouTube; minimal Facebook posting (parents on FB)
• 18–29: near-universal on at least one platform; heavy Instagram, TikTok, YouTube; Snapchat for messaging
• 30–49: high Facebook and Instagram; strong YouTube; growing TikTok via Reels cross-posts
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominant; some Pinterest; light Instagram
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube; lower multi-platform adoption Estimated adult usage rates (applied from national data): 18–29: ~95%+; 30–49: ~85–90%; 50–64: ~75–80%; 65+: ~50–60%

Gender breakdown (among active users; based on U.S. patterns applied locally)

• Female: ~52–55%
• Male: ~45–48% Notes: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X.

Most-used platforms (estimated adult reach in-county)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 65–70% (largest single local network)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 25–35% overall; 60–70% of teens/young adults
• Snapchat: 20–30% overall; 60–70% of teens
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (notably higher among Spanish-speaking/Hispanic households)
• Facebook Messenger: 55–65%
• Pinterest: 25–35% (women 25–54)
• X (Twitter): 15–20% (local news, sports, public agencies)
• LinkedIn: 15–25% (Houston/Katy commuters; low posting frequency)
• Nextdoor: 5–12% of residents (coverage strongest in/near Bellville and Sealy)
• Reddit: 10–15% (mostly lurkers; hobby/consumer research)

Local behavioral trends

• Community-first Facebook: heavy use of buy/sell/trade groups, lost & found pets, local weather/road updates, school sports, church and civic events (e.g., Austin County Fair, Sealy community events)
• Event and info hubs: Facebook pages for county offices, emergency management, and ISDs carry outsized reach; live video and posts drive fast dissemination during storms, closures, or wildfire risk
• Marketplace is a major commerce channel for farm/ranch equipment, vehicles, furniture, and services
• Short-form video: Instagram Reels and TikTok are primary for local boutiques, realtors, restaurants, gyms; creators often cross-post to maximize reach
• Messaging reliance: Family and church/school group coordination via Messenger and WhatsApp
• Time-of-day peaks: ~7–9am, ~12–1pm, and ~7–10pm; weekend mornings show strong local group activity
• Trust dynamics: Word-of-mouth in Facebook groups strongly influences local purchasing; UGC and peer recommendations outperform polished ads
• Commuter spillover: Many residents follow Houston/Katy media and influencers; regional news and sports bleed into local feeds
• Causes and faith-based engagement: High participation and sharing for fundraisers, boosters, and church initiatives

Notes on methodology

• Figures are modeled from U.S. (Pew Research, DataReportal/Kepios) and Texas patterns, adjusted for Austin County’s rural/commuter profile and age mix. Exact platform counts are not published at the county level; treat percentages as directional ranges.