Borden County

Which data vintage would you like me to use: 2020 Decennial Census (official count) or the latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023)? I can provide both side-by-side if helpful.

Context: Borden County, TX (pop ≈631, 2020) spans ≈906 sq mi—about 0.7 people per square mile, among the sparsest in Texas.

Estimated email users: 350–450 residents. Method: adult share (75–80% of population) × rural internet adoption (75–85%) × email use among internet users (~90%+), plus some teens (13–17).

Age distribution (approx.): under 18 ~22–25%; 18–34 ~15–20%; 35–64 ~40–45%; 65+ ~15–20%. Email is near‑universal for 18–64; lower but rising among 65+.

Gender split: roughly even, with a slight male majority typical of rural West Texas; email use shows minimal gender gap (≈50/50 among users).

Digital access trends and local connectivity:

• Broadband subscription and speeds lag the Texas average; mobile‑only, fixed‑wireless, and satellite are common.
• Best coverage near Gail and along major roads; remote ranchland is patchier.
• Community anchors (schools, county offices, public Wi‑Fi hotspots) are important for access.
• State and federal rural broadband programs are expanding middle‑mile and some fiber builds, but adoption is constrained by distance, terrain, and cost.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from Census population, rural adoption patterns, and national email‑use rates.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Borden County, Texas (very rural, population roughly 600–700; county seat: Gail)

User estimates

• Total mobile phone users: about 500–550 residents actively use a mobile phone (roughly 75–85% of the population).
• Smartphone users: roughly 400–480 people (about 65–75% of the population; 75–85% of adult phone owners).
• By age (estimates based on rural adoption patterns):
  • 18–64: high ownership, ~90–95% have a mobile phone; ~85–90% of those use smartphones.
  • 65+: lower adoption, ~75–85% have a mobile phone; ~60–75% of those use smartphones; basic/flip phones remain common.
  • Teens (13–17): ~90–95% smartphone adoption; absolute numbers are small given the county’s low youth population.
• Households depending on mobile data as primary or frequent home internet: about 20–30% (roughly 50–80 households), often via phone hotspots; the rest use a mix of fiber where available, fixed wireless, or satellite.

How this differs from Texas overall

• Smartphone penetration is several points lower than statewide averages (Texas: ~85–90% of adults).
• A higher share of basic/flip phones among seniors than the state average.
• Heavier reliance on phone hotspots for home connectivity compared with urban/suburban Texas.

Demographic and behavioral patterns that shape usage

• Older age structure: Borden skews older than Texas overall, which pulls down smartphone share and shortens daily screen time; voice and SMS remain important.
• Workforce mix: ranching/oilfield work favors rugged devices, strong in-vehicle coverage, and PTT/FirstNet features; device replacement cycles are longer than in metro areas.
• Ethnicity: the county is majority non-Hispanic White with a smaller Hispanic share than Texas overall; language-driven plan selection (e.g., international calling) is less of a factor than in many Texas metros.
• Plan types and channels: residents gravitate to carriers with the best rural coverage (AT&T/FirstNet and Verizon). Prepaid/MVNO use is common but chosen carefully due to roaming and deprioritization; retail access is limited, so many buy online or in nearby towns.

Carrier mix (indicative, based on rural West Texas patterns)

• AT&T/FirstNet: 45–55% share; strong low-band coverage and public-safety appeal.
• Verizon: 35–45% share; similarly strong rural footprint.
• T-Mobile: 5–15% share; usable near highways/towns where 600 MHz is present but patchier elsewhere.
• MVNOs ride the above networks; deprioritization and roaming policies matter more here than in cities.

How this differs from Texas overall

• Market share is more concentrated in AT&T and Verizon than in the state as a whole.
• Public-safety (FirstNet) features and in-vehicle coverage drive choices more than 5G branding or entertainment bundles.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage and towers: A handful of multi-carrier macro sites serve the county, clustered near Gail, US‑180, and energy corridors; large ranch tracts rely on distant sites, creating dead zones in low terrain. Many residents catch signal from towers in adjacent counties.
• Spectrum and performance: Coverage leans on low-band LTE and low-band 5G (DSS). Mid-band 5G capacity is limited or absent in much of the county. Typical observed speeds are modest (often ~5–25 Mbps down, 2–10 up) with higher variability than in metros; latency can be 40–80 ms.
• Backhaul: Some rural sites use microwave backhaul; weather and power events can degrade capacity more noticeably than in fiber-rich urban nodes.
• 5G fixed wireless access (FWA): Available only near certain towers; adoption exists but is constrained by footprint and line-of-sight. Where present, it can displace phone hotspot use.
• Fiber and wired broadband: Rural telco co-ops have built FTTH to selected areas (e.g., near town and along certain routes); schools and public facilities tend to be on fiber. Many remote ranches still lack wired options.
• Emergency communications: FirstNet adoption among public safety and volunteer responders is higher than statewide averages; Wi‑Fi calling is widely used indoors.

How this differs from Texas overall

• Far lower tower density and heavier dependence on low-band spectrum.
• Mid-band 5G coverage and speeds are well behind state urban/suburban norms.
• Greater reliance on microwave backhaul and backup power; outages have outsized impact on service quality.

Usage trends and implications

• More voice/SMS and in-vehicle calling than the Texas average due to work patterns and coverage variability.
• Mobile hotspot use as primary internet is notably higher than statewide; when fiber reaches a household, Wi‑Fi calling often replaces weak indoor cellular.
• Device cycles are longer; rugged cases and PTT accessories are common.
• Seasonal oilfield activity can create localized, time-bound capacity strain near pads and along haul routes.

Bottom line differences vs. Texas statewide

• Lower smartphone penetration, higher basic-phone share among seniors.
• Carrier choices driven by coverage and FirstNet, not by bundles or top-end 5G speeds.
• Patchier 5G (especially mid-band) and fewer towers; more dead zones and greater reliance on Wi‑Fi calling.
• Higher incidence of mobile hotspot use for home connectivity.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot. Because Borden County’s population is very small, platform-level datasets don’t publish county-specific numbers; figures are modeled from Pew Research (2024), Texas rural patterns, and age-weighting to Borden’s older-leaning demographics. Treat as directional estimates.

User stats

• Social media penetration: 55–65% of residents; 65–75% of adults. About 70–80% of users are daily.
• Device mix: Mobile-first (≈85–90% of usage). Desktop is secondary; Messenger/SMS are key response channels.

Age mix of social users (share of users, not population)

• 13–17: 10–12%
• 18–24: 10–12%
• 25–34: 18–22%
• 35–44: 18–22%
• 45–64: 25–30%
• 65+: 12–18%

Gender breakdown

• Overall usage roughly tracks the local adult split (near 50/50). Typical platform skews:
  • Facebook: slightly female-skewed (≈55% F / 45% M)
  • YouTube: slightly male-skewed (≈55% M / 45% F)
  • Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok: mild female skew
  • LinkedIn, X (Twitter): mild male skew

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adult residents using monthly)

• YouTube: 65–75%
• Facebook: 55–65%
• Instagram: 25–35% (60–70% of under-35s)
• TikTok: 18–28% (heavy under-35)
• Snapchat: 15–25% (teens/HS-centric)
• Pinterest: 15–20% (adult women)
• WhatsApp: 8–12% (family comms; small but steady)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (oil & gas, education, healthcare)
• X (Twitter): 8–12% (state news, weather, sports scores)
• Nextdoor: <5% (Facebook Groups fill this role)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community hub = Facebook. Local groups/pages (school district, sports, churches, county/sheriff, VFD) drive announcements, lost-and-found, obits, and weather updates. Marketplace is the default classifieds channel (farm/ranch gear, vehicles, tools).
• Video-first consumption. YouTube for how‑to (equipment repair, ranching, DIY, oilfield safety), hunting/fishing, and local/regional sports. Short-form (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) is rising for entertainment and quick updates.
• Messaging norms. Adults favor Facebook Messenger; teens rely on Snapchat. Group chats coordinate school, rodeo, church youth events.
• Timing. Highest engagement early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekend spikes for games, church, and events. Severe weather drives sharp, short-lived surges.
• What performs. Hyper-local photos, school sports highlights, road/weather alerts, community service notices, practical tips, and giveaways. Authentic local voices far outperform generic brand content.
• Ads/playbook. Best ROI via Facebook/Instagram with tight radius targeting that includes nearby counties to reach viable audience size. Short video (<15 seconds) and “call/text” CTAs convert better than web forms (connectivity/site speed constraints). Lookalikes built from neighboring-county customers help scale.
• Privacy/scale realities. Many profiles are private; closed groups matter. Extremely small audiences can make platform reach estimates and A/B tests noisy; expect wider performance variance than in metro areas.