Bee County

Key demographics – Bee County, Texas (most recent Census/ACS):

Population size

• 2023 estimate: ~30,700
• 2020 Census: ~31,000

Age

• Median age: ~33
• Under 18: ~19%
• 65 and over: ~13%

Sex

• Male: ~62%
• Female: ~38% (Note: The county’s large state-prison population skews the sex ratio and age structure.)

Race/ethnicity (of total population)

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~60–61%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~28–30%
• Black or African American: ~7%
• Asian: ~1%
• Two or more races/Other: ~3–4%

Households

• Households: ~8,800–9,000
• Average household size: ~2.8
• Family households: ~67–70% of households
• Married-couple households: ~44–46%
• Households with children under 18: ~32–35%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey (5-year) and Vintage 2023 Population Estimates.

Bee County, TX snapshot (estimates; based on ACS/Pew rural benchmarks and county demographics)

• Population base: 31,000 residents; low density (35 people/sq. mile). Large correctional facilities skew the resident count male and reduce civilian internet/email rates.

• Estimated email users: 20,000–23,000 residents. Basis: high adult email adoption (≈85–90%), lower rates for minors, and limited access among the incarcerated population.

• Age profile of email users (share of users):

  • Under 18: 8–12% (school-driven use; many rely on phones)
  • 18–29: 18–22% (near‑universal use)
  • 30–49: 30–35% (highest usage intensity)
  • 50–64: 18–22%
  • 65+: 12–16% (growing, but below younger cohorts)

• Gender split among civilian users: roughly even (≈50/50). Overall county population is male‑skewed due to prisons, but that group has limited email access.

• Digital access trends:

  • Household broadband subscription likely in the 70–80% range countywide, higher in Beeville and lower in outlying rural areas.
  • Smartphone‑only internet access is common (roughly 15–25% of households), making mobile the primary email channel.
  • Connectivity is strongest along Beeville/US‑181 corridors; fixed wireless and mobile hotspots bridge gaps in sparsely populated areas.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools) remains an important access point; affordability pressures have been rising as subsidy programs fluctuate.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Bee County, Texas (focus on how it differs from statewide patterns)

Quick context

• Population: roughly 31,000–33,000 residents. A notable share are incarcerated in state facilities located in the county; these residents are not active mobile users and can skew raw demographic counts.
• Households: about 10,000–11,000.

Estimated user base and adoption

• Active mobile users: approximately 22,000–25,000 residents carry a mobile phone when excluding the incarcerated population.
• Smartphone penetration: about 80–85% of adults (a few points lower than large-metro Texas averages).
• Smartphone-only internet households: estimated 30–35% of households rely primarily or entirely on a smartphone data plan for home internet (higher than Texas overall, which is closer to the high teens/low 20s).

Demographic patterns that shape usage (vs Texas overall)

• Hispanic/Latino majority: Bee County’s Hispanic share is well above the state average. Practical impacts: higher bilingual usage, heavier use of WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger and family plan/prepaid lines that support extended families.
• Income and education: Median household income and college attainment are below state averages. Impacts: greater prepaid/MVNO use (Cricket, Metro, Straight Talk), slower device upgrade cycles, higher Android share, and stronger reliance on mobile data in lieu of wired broadband.
• Age mix: Adjusting for the incarcerated population, the non-institutionalized population skews somewhat older than big-city Texas. Impacts: slightly lower cutting-edge app adoption, but steady use of voice/SMS and mainstream social apps.

Digital infrastructure highlights (and how they differ from state trends)

• Coverage pattern:
  • 4G LTE is broadly available in Beeville and along primary corridors; outlying ranchland has patchier service and more dead zones than the Texas average.
  • 5G is present mainly in Beeville and near highways; outside town it is mostly low-band 5G with mid-band appearing in pockets. mmWave is essentially absent.
• Speeds and capacity:
  • Typical downloads in town: around 20–100 Mbps; rural areas often 5–20 Mbps with occasional drops to sub-5 Mbps indoors.
  • Peak-time congestion is more noticeable in town (fewer sectors per site and limited backhaul compared with metro Texas).
• Carrier landscape:
  • All three national carriers have a presence; T-Mobile often shows the broadest 5G footprint in rural stretches; AT&T/Verizon tend to be strongest along highways and in central Beeville.
  • Prepaid/MVNO share is higher than the statewide mix, reflecting income and credit patterns.
• Backhaul and resiliency:
  • Fiber backhaul reaches Beeville (college, hospital, public facilities); many rural sites still lean on microwave backhaul, limiting capacity compared with metro Texas.
  • Storm resilience and restoration times can lag state urban norms; carriers may deploy temporary cells during major outages.
• Public access and offload:
  • Heavier use of public/institutional Wi‑Fi (library, schools, Coastal Bend College, city buildings) to supplement limited or costly home broadband—more common than in urban Texas counties.

Behavioral/usage trends that differ from statewide

• Higher reliance on mobile as primary internet (smartphone-only households) and hotspot use for homework/job applications.
• Greater prevalence of prepaid lines, multi-line family plans, and Android devices.
• More bilingual communication and OTT messaging (WhatsApp) usage.
• Wider indoor coverage variability and more planning around signal (e.g., choosing carriers based on specific ranch/farm or commute corridors).
• Lower average speeds and fewer 5G mid-band areas than the Texas metro norm.

How these estimates were derived

• Population and household baselines from recent Census/ACS releases; adoption rates aligned to Pew Research and rural Texas patterns; coverage and performance patterns synthesized from FCC maps, carrier public maps, and typical rural network characteristics in South Texas. Figures are presented as ranges to reflect uncertainty and year-to-year changes.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot. County-level, platform-by-platform data isn’t directly published, so figures are estimated from Bee County’s size and age mix (U.S. Census ACS) combined with Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media benchmarks. Treat counts as directional, not exact.

Estimated user base in Bee County

• Population: ~31,000
• Adults (18+): ~23,000
• Adult social media users: ~16,000–18,000 (assumes ~70–75% of adults use social media, per Pew’s national rate)
• Teens (13–17): +1,500–2,000 likely users (teen usage is very high nationally)
• Mobile-first: majority of use is via smartphones in rural Texas; expect >80% of local usage to be mobile

Age groups (usage patterns)

• 13–17: Heavy daily use; platform mix led by TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; short-form video and messaging-first behavior
• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube; strong Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; DM/Stories > public posting
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube anchors; Instagram solid; Marketplace, Groups, and short-form video consumption common
• 50–64: Facebook dominant; YouTube growing; local news, community groups, and Marketplace are primary hooks
• 65+: Facebook first; YouTube second; lower multi-platform use, higher engagement with local updates and events

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Overall usage rates are similar for men and women
• Platform skews (U.S. patterns that typically hold locally):
  • More women: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest
  • More men: Reddit, X (Twitter), Discord
  • Mixed/neutral: YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Facebook Groups/Marketplace

Most-used platforms (baseline percentages from U.S. adults, Pew 2024; apply locally with minor rural skew)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Pinterest: ~35%
• LinkedIn: ~30%
• Snapchat: ~27%
• X (Twitter): ~22%
• Reddit: ~22%
• WhatsApp: ~21% Local notes
• Facebook over-indexes in rural counties; expect Facebook and YouTube to be the top two in Bee County.
• WhatsApp usage can be higher in Hispanic communities; Bee County’s sizable Hispanic population likely lifts WhatsApp and Facebook usage versus X/Reddit.

Behavioral trends in Bee County (observed in similar rural Texas counties)

• Facebook Groups as the community hub: school and sports updates, church and civic events, lost-and-found, weather/road alerts
• Facebook Marketplace for local buying/selling; high responsiveness to posts with clear photos, price, location
• Short-form video wins attention: Reels/Shorts drive reach more than link posts
• Evening and weekend peaks: after-work hours for adults; after-school for teens
• Bilingual or Spanish-first content performs well where relevant (city/county notices, health, schools, small business promos)
• Trust signals matter: real names, familiar faces, and locally shot photos outperform stock or generic creative
• Connectivity constraints: some users are on limited data; captions and on-screen text help when audio or bandwidth is limited
• Messaging > public posting: DMs (Facebook/Instagram) and WhatsApp for inquiries, customer service, and parent–school communication

Quick sizing (rule-of-thumb, adults)

• Facebook monthly reach: 12,000–14,000 adults
• YouTube reachable adults: 17,000–19,000
• Instagram adults: 9,000–11,000
• TikTok adults: 7,000–8,000 These are estimates applying Pew’s usage rates to Bee County’s adult population.

Sources and method

• U.S. Census Bureau ACS (population/age structure for Bee County)
• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (platform adoption rates and age/gender patterns)
• Rural Texas social media adoption patterns from state/local digital inclusion studies and market practice