Bowie County

Which reference year/source would you like? I can provide a concise snapshot from:

• 2020 Census (exact counts; good for population, age/sex, race/ethnicity, households), or
• ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates (most current small-area estimates; includes age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household characteristics).

Reply with your preference and I’ll deliver the figures.

Bowie County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Population/density: ~93–95k residents; ~100 people per square mile. Connectivity is highest in the Texarkana urban core; rural areas have more gaps.
• Estimated email users: 65k–75k. Assumes ~82–86% internet adoption and that ~95% of internet users use email (Pew-like rates applied to local population).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users):
  • 18–29: ~20–25% (near‑universal adoption)
  • 30–49: ~30–35% (near‑universal)
  • 50–64: ~25–30% (high adoption)
  • 65+: ~15–20% (lower but rising)
• Gender split among email users: roughly mirrors population (~51% female, ~49% male), with negligible usage gap by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription is likely ~80–85% (slightly below large‑metro Texas), with 12–18% of households relying on smartphone‑only internet.
  • Urban/rural divide persists: fiber/cable more available in Texarkana and along the I‑30 corridor; DSL/fixed‑wireless more common in outlying areas.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools, campuses) and mobile hotspots help bridge access for lower‑income and rural residents.
  • Steady growth in fiber and 5G coverage is improving speeds and reliability, supporting increased email and cloud/app use.

Notes: Figures are derived from ACS/Texas rural connectivity patterns and Pew email adoption rates applied to Bowie County’s size and age mix.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Bowie County, Texas (distinctive trends vs. state)

Context

• Population: roughly 90–95k, centered on Texarkana with large rural areas to the north and west. Income and educational attainment trail Texas averages; age skew is slightly older than state.

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: approximately 60,000–70,000 individuals.
  • Adult ownership rate is likely in the 80–84% range (below the Texas average, which is closer to the high‑80s).
  • Teen smartphone use is widespread; adding teens likely pushes total smartphone users into the mid‑60k range.
• Mobile‑only internet users (no fixed home broadband): noticeably above the Texas average.
  • Expect a meaningful share of households to rely on smartphone data or hotspot plans as their primary home internet, reflecting lower incomes and rural last‑mile constraints.
• Plan mix: prepaid and budget MVNOs (Cricket, Metro, Boost, Tracfone) have a larger footprint than in major Texas metros; multi‑line postpaid penetration is lower.

Demographic patterns (how Bowie differs from Texas overall)

• Age: Adults 65+ are more likely to use basic/feature phones or limited data plans than their Texas peers; smartphone adoption among seniors lags the state.
• Income: Lower‑income households rely more on prepaid and on smartphone‑only connectivity. The lapse of the federal ACP subsidy in 2024 likely increased downgrades to lower‑data plans and mobile‑only reliance here more than statewide.
• Race/ethnicity: A larger Black population share than the Texas average correlates with higher smartphone‑only internet reliance and lower home broadband adoption; Hispanic share is smaller than the state average, so Spanish‑language mobile usage is less dominant than in many Texas counties.
• Urban vs. rural split: Texarkana users resemble statewide urban patterns (higher 5G use, multiple devices), while outlying communities show lower adoption, more basic phones, and greater dependence on hotspots.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • Strongest along I‑30, US‑59/US‑71, and in/around Texarkana. Coverage thins in low‑density northern and western parts of the county, with more dead zones indoors and in forested areas.
  • 4G LTE is widespread; 5G low‑band is fairly common in and near Texarkana. Mid‑band 5G (higher capacity) is concentrated near the city and major corridors; rural mid‑band is limited compared with Texas metros.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Median speeds in Texarkana are competitive (often triple‑digit Mbps on mid‑band 5G when available), but countywide medians are below Texas urban averages because many users fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G outside the core.
  • Peak‑hour congestion is more noticeable at schools, shopping areas, and along I‑30. Rural sectors with microwave backhaul can bottleneck under load.
• Carriers
  • AT&T and T‑Mobile generally provide the best capacity around Texarkana; Verizon coverage is present countywide but can be more variable indoors in rural pockets. Carrier rankings can flip by micro‑location.
  • MVNOs riding the big three networks are commonly used for cost control; users may trade peak‑time deprioritization for lower prices.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Texarkana has better fiber backhaul and some residential fiber builds; outside the city, fiber routes are sparse, and towers often rely on microwave backhaul. This limits rural 5G capacity compared with Texas metro counties that have denser fiber.
• Cross‑border dynamics
  • The state line with Arkansas leads to device attachment to Arkansas cell sites in parts of Texarkana; performance and network selection can shift by block, which is less common in interior Texas counties.

Key ways Bowie County differs from Texas statewide

• Lower overall smartphone adoption, driven by older age profile and rural households.
• Higher share of mobile‑only internet users and hotspot‑dependent households.
• Greater reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and sensitivity to plan price changes (exacerbated by the end of ACP).
• More pronounced urban–rural performance gap: city corridors get mid‑band 5G; many rural areas remain LTE‑dominant.
• Cross‑border network behavior (TX/AR) adds variability that most Texas counties do not experience.
• Tower density and fiber backhaul are thinner outside the urban core, leading to lower median speeds than statewide averages.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• Figures are estimates synthesized from recent national and Texas adoption benchmarks, ACS patterns for device and internet subscription at the county level, and typical rural–urban performance differentials observed in FCC coverage and independent speed testing. Exact, current county‑level measurements vary by neighborhood and carrier.

Here’s a concise, data-informed snapshot of social media usage in Bowie County, Texas. Exact county-level platform stats aren’t published; figures below are estimates based on Bowie County’s population profile and recent U.S./Texas usage studies.

Headline user stats

• Population base: ~92,000 (Bowie County). Estimated 13+ population: ~78,000–80,000.
• Estimated social media users (13+): ~60,000–68,000 (roughly 75–85% penetration).
• Daily use: Most users check at least one platform daily; ~60–70% are daily active on their top platform.

Age and adoption

• 13–17: ~95% use at least one platform; heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; lighter Facebook.
• 18–29: ~95%+; video- and messaging-first (YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat).
• 30–49: ~90%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram rising; TikTok moderate.
• 50–64: ~75–85%; Facebook + YouTube core; Instagram/Pinterest moderate; TikTok lower but growing.
• 65+: ~45–60%; Facebook primary; YouTube second; others low.

Gender breakdown (of total social media users)

• Roughly 52% women, 48% men (mirrors local population; usage rates are similar).
• Platform tilt: Women higher on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men higher on YouTube, Reddit, X.

Most-used platforms in Bowie County (share of 13+ population; estimates)

• YouTube: ~78–85%
• Facebook: ~68–75%
• Instagram: ~45–52%
• TikTok: ~32–40%
• Snapchat: ~25–33% (much higher among teens/20s)
• Pinterest: ~25–32% (skews female, 25–54)
• WhatsApp: ~15–22% (family/multiparty chats; diaspora ties)
• X (Twitter): ~15–22% (news, sports)
• Reddit: ~18–24% (skews male/younger)
• LinkedIn: ~12–18% (lower in less white-collar segments)
• Nextdoor: ~8–12% (higher in city neighborhoods vs rural areas)

Behavioral trends on the ground

• Community-first Facebook: Local groups and Pages (schools, churches, civic groups, law enforcement, high school sports), events, and Marketplace drive recurring engagement.
• Video is king: YouTube for how-tos, repairs, outdoor/DIY, and local sports highlights; TikTok/Instagram Reels for short-form entertainment and local food/service discovery.
• Local commerce: Heavy Facebook Marketplace and buy/sell/trade groups; Instagram DMs and Facebook Messenger for inquiries and appointments. TikTok increasingly used by small businesses for promos.
• News and alerts: School closings, weather, traffic, and safety updates via Facebook Pages/Groups; X used by a smaller, news-centric subset.
• Younger cohorts: Snapchat for daily streaks/messaging; Instagram and TikTok for identity, trends, and creator content; YouTube for learning and gaming culture.
• Timing and device: Mobile-first; evening and weekend spikes; weekday lunch and early evening see strong local engagement.
• Cross-border dynamic: Texarkana (TX–AR) content and groups mix; regional pages serve both sides of the line.
• Trust and verification: Word-of-mouth through group comments moderates local business reputation; reviews and UGC matter more than polished ads.

Notes and sources (for methodology)

• Population: U.S. Census Bureau/ACS (Bowie County, TX).
• Usage benchmarks: Pew Research Center (2024 Social Media Use), DataReportal/We Are Social (2024 USA), platform-reported audience trends.
• Percentages are localized estimates derived by applying national age/gender platform rates to Bowie County’s population structure; expect variation by neighborhood, income, and broadband access.