Blanco County

Key demographics — Blanco County, Texas

• Population

  • 2023 estimate: about 12,900
  • 2020 Census: 11,374

• Age

  • Median age: about 51
  • Under 18: ~19%
  • 18–64: ~53%
  • 65 and over: ~28%

• Gender

  • Female: ~50.5%
  • Male: ~49.5%

• Race/ethnicity (share of total population)

  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~21%
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~74%
  • Black or African American: ~1%
  • Asian: ~0.5%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.6%
  • Two or more races: ~3%

• Households

  • Number of households: about 5,400
  • Persons per household: ~2.4
  • Family households: ~68%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~83%
  • Households with children under 18: ~22%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year; 2023 Vintage Population Estimates/QuickFacts). Figures rounded for readability.

Blanco County, TX email usage (estimates)

• Users: Population ~12–13k; expected email users 8.5k–9.5k (based on high U.S. adoption and rural internet availability).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–49: ~50–55% of users (email adoption ~90–95%).
  • 50–64: ~25–30% (adoption ~85–90%).
  • 65+: ~15–20% (adoption ~70–85%).
  • Teens 13–17: ~3–6% (most have access but use varies).
• Gender split: Roughly even (~50/50); no strong gender gap in email use.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband adoption likely ~70–80% of households; smartphone-only internet ~10–15%.
  • Growth in fixed wireless and fiber-to-the-home in and near towns; satellite fills remote gaps.
  • Usage rising with remote work/school and e-government services; older residents increasingly connected but remain less intensive users.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Low population density (~17 people/sq. mile) and Hill Country terrain create last-mile challenges.
  • Best speeds/coverage in Blanco and Johnson City and along US‑281/US‑290; outlying ranchlands see more fixed wireless/satellite reliance.
  • State/federal broadband grants (e.g., Texas Broadband Development Office/BEAD) are driving incremental fiber buildouts.

Figures are scaled from rural U.S./Texas patterns to Blanco County’s size.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Blanco County, TX (what’s distinct from statewide patterns)

Big picture differences vs Texas

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration, driven by an older age profile and patchier coverage outside town centers.
• Higher reliance on mobile data as a primary internet connection (hotspots or mobile-only) because wired broadband is sparse outside Blanco and Johnson City.
• Carrier mix skews more toward AT&T and Verizon than the Texas average; T-Mobile share is smaller outside town centers due to coverage gaps in ranchland and river valleys.
• 5G mid-band (fast) coverage is spotty; low-band 5G and LTE carry most traffic. Indoor signal challenges (metal roofs, low-rise masonry) mean more Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters than typical in metro Texas.
• Seasonal tourism and weekend winery traffic along US‑281/US‑290 create noticeable, time‑bound congestion spikes that are less pronounced at the state level.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, county-wide)

• Population/households: roughly 12–13k residents and 5–5.5k households, low density outside Blanco and Johnson City.
• Smartphone users: about 8–9k active smartphone users (lower share of seniors brings the total down vs Texas).
• Wireless-only homes: majority of households rely primarily on mobile for voice; a meaningful minority also use mobile data/hotspots as their main home internet. Estimated 10–15% of households are mobile-data primary (higher than Texas overall).
• Postpaid vs prepaid: more price sensitivity and coverage-driven churn. Prepaid/MVNO lines likely 30–40% of consumer lines (several points higher than the Texas average), with AT&T- and Verizon-network MVNOs preferred in outlying areas.
• Device mix: higher incidence of basic/flip phones among 65+; among working-age adults and teens, adoption is near urban Texas levels.

Demographic breakdown and its effects

• Age: Older than the Texas average. Estimated smartphone adoption by age:
  • Under 35: ~95%+
  • 35–64: ~85–90%
  • 65+: ~60–70% (notably below the Texas 65+ average)
• Income/plan selection: Median incomes below the state average in many tracts lead to:
  • More prepaid and MVNO usage
  • Heavier family-plan optimization among postpaid users
  • Higher sensitivity to ACP/Lifeline changes (the ACP wind‑down pushed some households toward mobile hotspot dependence)
• Language/ethnicity: County is predominantly non‑Hispanic White with a smaller Spanish‑speaking share than Texas overall; carrier retail and support demand is less bilingual than in metro Texas, with fewer in‑language promos influencing plan choice.

Digital infrastructure (coverage, capacity, and backhaul)

• Macro coverage:
  • AT&T and Verizon: Generally strong along US‑281/US‑290 and inside Blanco/Johnson City; service degrades in low-lying ranch areas, canyons, and larger parcels off main roads.
  • T‑Mobile: Good in-town coverage; more gaps in the west/northwest of the county and between towns.
• 5G:
  • Low‑band 5G from AT&T/Verizon is present around towns and corridors but often behaves like enhanced LTE.
  • Mid‑band 5G (C‑band on Verizon, n41 on T‑Mobile) is mainly town‑center/corridor-limited; outside those zones, users fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G. This lags the Texas metro experience.
• Capacity and congestion:
  • Weekend tourism and events along the 281/290 wine corridor create predictable surges; festivals and state park traffic can throttle speeds to sub‑LTE norms briefly.
• Backhaul/fiber:
  • Fiber backbones track highways and utility rights‑of‑way; town cores see better backhaul and more modern sites.
  • FTTH is patchy outside town limits; many outlying homes depend on fixed wireless, satellite, or mobile hotspots—raising mobile network load relative to the Texas average.
• In‑building coverage:
  • Metal‑roof construction and low site density mean more reliance on Wi‑Fi calling, femtocells, and external antennas/boosters than in urban Texas.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence on key sites; wildfire and flood risk areas occasionally use temporary cells/COWs during incidents, reflecting greater rural hardening needs.

What this means for planners and providers

• Investment yield is highest on mid‑band 5G infill along US‑281/US‑290 and in subdivisions just outside Blanco and Johnson City.
• Extending fiber backhaul to a few additional macro and small‑cell nodes would disproportionately improve peak‑time performance vs simply adding low‑band coverage.
• Outreach on Wi‑Fi calling, boosters, and external antennas can materially improve user experience in metal-roof homes.
• Prepaid/MVNO and rural‑friendly device financing remain key to adoption among price‑sensitive and senior segments.

Notes on uncertainty

• Figures above are modeled estimates based on rural Texas patterns, the county’s age/income profile, and typical carrier deployments in the Hill Country. For a decision‑grade brief, pair this with current FCC Broadband Fabric, carrier 5G mid‑band maps, and ACS 5‑year tables for final counts.

Below is a concise, county-tailored snapshot based on modeled estimates that blend Blanco County’s rural/older profile with recent Pew Research Center social-media adoption data for U.S. adults. Exact, survey-based county figures aren’t publicly available, so treat these as best-fit estimates.

Overall user stats

• Adult population: roughly 10,000–11,000
• Adults using at least one social platform: ~70–80% (≈7,000–8,500 people)
• Rural/older skew means Facebook and YouTube dominate; TikTok/Instagram trail larger cities but are growing in under-35s

Age-group usage (share using any social platform)

• 18–29: ~90–95% (heavy multi-platform; daily Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat)
• 30–49: ~80–90% (Facebook + YouTube core; Instagram ~40–55%, TikTok ~30–40%)
• 50–64: ~65–75% (Facebook ~55–65%, YouTube ~70%; Instagram/TikTok ~15–25%)
• 65+: ~50–60% (Facebook ~45–55%, YouTube ~55–65%; limited on newer apps)

Gender snapshot (tendencies)

• Women slightly more likely on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; strong participation in local FB Groups
• Men skew higher on YouTube, Reddit, X (Twitter); how-to/outdoors content over-indexes

Most-used platforms in Blanco County (estimated share of adults)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70% (Groups/Pages are the local hub)
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Facebook Messenger: 45–55%
• WhatsApp: 15–25% (higher among Hispanic families/transplants)
• Snapchat: 12–18% (teens/20s)
• X (Twitter): 12–18%
• LinkedIn: 15–25% (commuters/professionals; hospitality/winery management)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (patchy in low-density areas)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups drive daily engagement (school boosters, buy/sell/trade, lost & found, events, church, youth sports).
• Public service follows: High response to posts from county offices, schools, sheriff/ESD, road/wildfire/water updates.
• Small business and tourism: Wineries, breweries, outfitters, B&Bs lean on Facebook + Instagram Reels; scenic/event content performs best. Cross-post short video to TikTok to reach younger visitors.
• Video-heavy habits: YouTube for DIY, ranch/home maintenance, gear reviews; short-form video is rising countywide.
• Messaging over comments: Many interactions shift to Messenger/WhatsApp for coordination and customer service.
• Timing: Evenings and early mornings perform best; weekend spikes for events. Seasonal peaks around wildflowers/spring, river/lake summer, and fall festivals.
• Trust/privacy: Older users prefer closed groups and clear, practical info; soft-sell, service-first content outperforms hard pitches.

Notes

• Figures reflect Pew national/rural adoption patterns adjusted for Blanco County’s older age mix; they are indicative, not official counts.