Bosque County Local Demographic Profile

Here are key demographics for Bosque County, Texas. Figures are the latest available U.S. Census Bureau estimates (ACS 2019–2023 5-year) unless noted; values rounded.

Population

  • Total: ~18.6k (2020 Decennial Census: 18,235)

Age

  • Median age: ~46–47 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 18 to 64: ~55%
  • 65 and over: ~24%

Gender

  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%

Race/ethnicity

  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~26–28%
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~65–68%
  • Black or African American: ~2%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
  • Asian: ~0.5%
  • Two or more races/other: ~3–4%

Households and housing

  • Total households: ~7.3–7.6k
  • Average household size: ~2.4
  • Family households: ~65–70% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~22–25%
  • Married-couple households: ~50–55% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–80%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census (population total) and 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101, DP04).

Email Usage in Bosque County

Bosque County, TX snapshot (estimates)

  • Population: ~18,200; adults ~14,500.
  • Email users: 12,000–13,000 (about 80–90% of adults). Point estimate ~12,400.

Age distribution of email users

  • 18–34: ~22%
  • 35–54: ~32%
  • 55–64: ~20%
  • 65+: ~26% Older residents are less likely to use email than younger adults, so their share among users is slightly below their population share.

Gender split among email users

  • Female ~51–52%
  • Male ~48–49%

Digital access and trends

  • Roughly three-quarters of households have a home broadband subscription; 85–90% have internet via any device (home or mobile). Smartphone‑only access is common (about 10–15% of households).
  • Adoption gaps persist among seniors and lower‑income households; mobile data plans are a key on‑ramp for many new users.
  • Connectivity is shaped by low population density (~18 people per square mile over ~1,000 sq. mi.). Fiber and cable are concentrated in and around Clifton and Meridian; many outlying areas rely on fixed wireless or satellite. Recent expansions by regional ISPs and federal/state rural broadband programs are improving speeds and reliability, which typically increases email adoption.

Mobile Phone Usage in Bosque County

Bosque County, TX: mobile usage snapshot focused on how it differs from Texas overall

Estimated user base

  • Population baseline: roughly 18,000–20,000 residents; adults are a larger share than the Texas average due to an older age profile.
  • Adult smartphone users: about 11,500–13,500 (assumes 80–85% adult smartphone adoption, a few points below Texas’s ~88–90%).
  • Households relying on cellular as their primary or only home internet (smartphone/hotspot-only): approximately 1,400–1,900 households, or 18–24% of households, notably higher than the state average (~12–15%).
  • Prepaid/MVNO share: materially higher than statewide—estimated 35–45% of lines vs ~25–30% in Texas—driven by price sensitivity and limited carrier store presence.

Demographic factors shaping usage (and how they diverge from the state)

  • Age: Older than Texas overall. This slightly suppresses top-line smartphone adoption but raises the share of basic/older devices and lengthens upgrade cycles.
  • Income and education: Below state averages. This lifts prepaid use, family plans, and MVNOs; increases smartphone/hotspot-only home internet reliance where fixed broadband is scarce or costly.
  • Race/ethnicity: Higher share of non-Hispanic White residents, smaller Black share, and a substantial Hispanic population. Language-flexible plans and budget carriers are important, but brand preferences fragment less along national-advertising lines than in big metros.
  • Work patterns: Agriculture, trades, and small retail dominate. Daytime usage skews to field/worksite messaging, navigation, and payment apps rather than heavy video; evening and weekend spikes occur around local schools, events, and Lake Whitney recreation.

Digital infrastructure and performance

  • Coverage mix
    • 4G LTE is the reliability backbone across the county; performance varies widely with terrain and distance from highways and towns.
    • 5G is present mainly as low-band “coverage 5G” from AT&T and T-Mobile; it improves reach but not capacity. Mid-band 5G capacity (100–300+ Mbps) appears in and near towns (e.g., Clifton, Meridian, Valley Mills) and along major corridors, but is patchy compared with urban Texas. mmWave small cells are effectively absent.
    • Verizon LTE is broadly available; 5G coverage has expanded but is less consistent indoors outside town centers compared with the state’s urban corridors.
  • Backhaul constraints
    • Fiber backhaul is concentrated along primary routes; many rural sites rely on microwave or limited-capacity fiber, causing bigger peak-time slowdowns than in Texas metros.
    • As a result, speed tests in outlying areas more often fall in the 5–30 Mbps LTE range, vs 50–150+ Mbps commonly seen across Texas cities.
  • Resilience and public safety
    • AT&T’s FirstNet Band 14 overlays have improved emergency coverage for responders compared with pre-2020 conditions, but consumer capacity in the same cells can still bottleneck during storms, wildfires, and lake-season weekends.
  • Device/channel mix
    • More Wi‑Fi calling usage indoors (metal buildings, older homes) due to weaker indoor cellular. External antennas and signal boosters are common for ranches and lake properties.
    • Fewer carrier-owned retail stores; sales and support rely on big-box retailers, independent dealers, and online—contributing to slower device refresh cycles.

Behavioral and seasonal patterns

  • Higher smartphone-only internet reliance for homework and streaming in households without cable/fiber. School-issued hotspots remain important for students.
  • Weekend and seasonal congestion near Lake Whitney parks, marinas, and short-term rentals; measurable speed drops and higher latency at those times.
  • Agriculture and field work drive demand for coverage over capacity; IoT/telematics on LTE-M/NB-IoT is more prevalent than in urban Texas.

How Bosque County differs from Texas overall (key takeaways)

  • Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption, but higher reliance on cellular as the primary home connection.
  • Greater share of prepaid/MVNO lines; more price-sensitive plans and longer device lifecycles.
  • Coverage-first networks (LTE, low-band 5G) matter more than high-capacity 5G; mid-band 5G is spottier and less transformative than in metro Texas.
  • Bigger urban–rural performance gap: wider variance in speeds and indoor reliability, more dependence on Wi‑Fi/boosters.
  • Peak usage is driven by schools, local events, weather incidents, and recreation—less by large commuter corridors that shape statewide traffic patterns.

Notes on method and uncertainty

  • Estimates synthesize recent national/state mobile adoption research (e.g., Pew), county demographics (ACS 5-year), and rural network deployment patterns (FCC/industry reporting). Exact figures vary by carrier and location; ranges are provided where county-specific measurements are limited. For planning or investment decisions, validate with the latest ACS table S2801 (Computer and Internet Use), FCC coverage maps and crowdsourced drive tests, and carrier-specific RF planning data.

Social Media Trends in Bosque County

Social media usage in Bosque County, TX (short snapshot; directional estimates)

User stats

  • Population: ~18K residents; ~14K adults.
  • Active social media users: ~10K–11.5K total (about 65–75% of adults; plus ~0.9–1.1K teens).
  • Access: Heavily mobile-first; broadband uneven outside towns (Clifton, Meridian), which shapes content toward lighter/short-form video and images.

Age mix (share of local social users)

  • 13–17: ~8%
  • 18–29: ~16%
  • 30–49: ~34%
  • 50–64: ~24%
  • 65+: ~18% Note: County skews older than Texas overall, so a larger share of users are 50+ compared with urban counties.

Gender breakdown

  • Female: ~53% of users
  • Male: ~47% of users Platform lean: Women more on Facebook and Pinterest; men slightly more on YouTube and X.

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adult residents; ranges reflect rural adjustment)

  • YouTube: ~65–72%
  • Facebook: ~60–66%
  • Instagram: ~28–35%
  • TikTok: ~22–28%
  • Pinterest: ~20–25% (majority women 30–64)
  • Snapchat: ~12–16% (teens/20s)
  • WhatsApp: ~9–12% (notably in Hispanic households/family networks)
  • LinkedIn: ~6–9%
  • X (Twitter): ~5–8%
  • Nextdoor: ~3–5% (mostly inside town limits; limited reach countywide) Top two engagement drivers: YouTube (passive watching, local info, how-tos) and Facebook (groups, events, Marketplace).

Behavioral trends (what performs and when)

  • Local-first content: School sports, church activities, rodeos, county fair/4-H/FFA, hunting/fishing, Lake Whitney conditions, weather and outage updates. Hyperlocal photos and names of places/people drive shares and comments.
  • Groups + Marketplace: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups for announcements and buy/sell; “free/for sale,” lost-and-found pets, and service referrals perform strongly.
  • Event spikes: Engagement surges around storms, road closures, high school games, festivals, and elections. Practical updates outperform generic brand posts.
  • Short video, light data: Reels/shorts do well, but many users are on limited data; concise captions and subtitles help.
  • Messaging: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are common for business inquiries and appointment setting; quick responses are expected.
  • Timing: Peaks around 6–8am, 11:30am–1pm, and 8–10pm; weekends see mid-morning to early afternoon bumps.
  • Tone/trust: Word-of-mouth matters; posts with recognizable people/locations and prompt comment replies build credibility. Bilingual (English/Spanish) posts expand reach.

Notes on methodology

  • County-level social stats aren’t directly published; figures are modeled from 2020–2024 Pew Research social-media adoption rates, rural vs. urban differentials, U.S. Census/ACS demographics for Bosque County, and platform ad-reach tools. Treat as directional ranges rather than exact counts.

Other Counties in Texas