Brazos County

Here are concise, recent, Census-based estimates for Brazos County, TX.

Population

• Total: ~245,000 (2023 population estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~25–26
• Under 18: ~19%
• 18–24: ~30–31%
• 25–44: ~26–27%
• 45–64: ~14–15%
• 65+: ~9–10%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~28–30%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~55–57%
• Black or African American: ~11–12%
• Asian: ~7–8%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, other: ~1–2% combined

Households and housing

• Households: ~86,000–90,000
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~60% (married-couple ~40–42%)
• Households with children under 18: ~26–28%
• Living alone: ~25–28% of households
• Tenure: ~49–51% owner-occupied; ~49–51% renter-occupied

Notes: Figures are rounded; based primarily on U.S. Census Bureau 2023 Population Estimates and 2019–2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data.

Brazos County, TX snapshot (Bryan–College Station; ~240k residents; ~400 people/sq mi)

Estimated email users: ~210–220k. Assumes ~88–92% of residents 15+ use email, in line with U.S. adoption rates and the county’s large student population.

Age pattern:

• 18–29: near‑universal (≈98%) due to Texas A&M’s student base.
• 30–49: very high (≈95–98%).
• 50–64: high (≈90–93%).
• 65+: lower but majority (≈75–85%), main gap group.

Gender split: County is roughly 52% male / 48% female; email usage is essentially equal by gender, so users mirror this split.

Digital access and connectivity:

• ~86–88% of households have a fixed broadband subscription; about 1 in 5 are smartphone‑only or primarily mobile at home.
• Fiber/cable 100 Mbps+ widely available in the urban core (AT&T Fiber, Optimum); rural fringes see more gaps or slower options.
• Texas A&M’s extensive campus Wi‑Fi (tens of thousands of users daily) and public/library networks raise effective access and email use.

Trend: Continued fiber build‑outs and a youthful population sustain very high email usage; remaining non‑users are concentrated among seniors and lower‑income or rural households.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Brazos County, Texas

Context and method

• Brazos County is anchored by Bryan–College Station and Texas A&M University, creating an unusually young, transient, and event-driven user base compared with Texas overall. Estimates below synthesize recent population figures, typical U.S./Texas smartphone adoption, and college-town usage patterns. They are given as ranges to reflect seasonal swings (semester vs summer) and uncertainty.

User estimates

• Population baseline: roughly 240,000–255,000 residents, with large semester-driven inflows linked to Texas A&M.
• Smartphone users: approximately 180,000–210,000 regular users (roughly 75–85% of total residents; 90%+ of adults).
• Active mobile lines/SIMs (phones, tablets, watches, hotspots): roughly 230,000–300,000, reflecting multi‑device ownership by students and professionals.
• Mobile-only internet reliance: likely higher than the Texas average, roughly 20–25% of adults in Brazos vs ~15–18% statewide, driven by students who pair phone plans with campus/public Wi‑Fi rather than paying for fixed broadband at short-term rentals.
• Seasonal volatility: subscriber activity, data traffic, and churn rise notably late August–May (semesters), with sharp weekend spikes during major campus events.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: Far younger than Texas overall due to the university. High 18–34 share translates into near-universal smartphone ownership, heavy app/video/social usage, and faster adoption of 5G, eSIM, and dual‑SIM for travel.
• Students and short-term renters: Above-average prepaid and promotional postpaid uptake; frequent number porting around move-in/move-out; strong use of unlimited plans.
• International students and bilingual households: Heavier reliance on over‑the‑top messaging/voice (WhatsApp, FaceTime, WeChat, Telegram). eSIM/dual‑SIM used to maintain home-country numbers.
• Families and K‑12: High teen smartphone penetration; location/safety apps and family plans common.
• Income mix: Many low-reported-income students alongside university staff/professionals produces a barbell in plan choice (budget MVNOs and top-tier unlimited coexist).

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Macro coverage: Dense site grid along the Bryan–College Station urban corridor and the SH‑6/SH‑21 arteries; broader but thinner coverage toward rural edges of the county.
• 5G: Low‑band 5G is broadly available; mid‑band capacity (where deployed) concentrates in the urban core and campus areas. Users typically see strong performance in town, with drop‑offs at exurban fringes.
• Small cells and DAS: Concentrations in and around Texas A&M campus, Northgate entertainment district, major apartment zones, and large venues. Game days trigger temporary capacity (e.g., COWs) and heavy DAS utilization to support stadium crowds.
• Backhaul and fiber: Multiple fiber providers serve Bryan–College Station; growing fiber footprint supports small‑cell densification and helps offload mobile demand via robust campus and municipal Wi‑Fi.
• Fixed Wireless Access (FWA): Noticeable uptake for student apartments and edge‑of‑county homes lacking fiber/cable, contributing to higher-than-average 5G home internet penetration.
• Coverage pain points: Performance variability appears at rural edges and inside some metal/masonry student housing, mitigated by Wi‑Fi calling and indoor small cells in select buildings.

How Brazos County differs from Texas overall

• Younger, more transient base: Higher smartphone penetration among adults, faster 5G/eSIM adoption, and higher churn tied to academic calendars.
• More mobile-only households: Students disproportionately forgo fixed broadband, relying on phones plus campus/public Wi‑Fi.
• Event-driven peaks: Football and large campus events produce some of the state’s more intense localized surges, necessitating dense DAS/small-cell deployments atypical for counties of similar size.
• Heavier OTT international communications: Above-state-average use of cross-border messaging/voice and dual‑SIM.
• Stronger FWA adoption in multifamily/student housing: Used as a flexible alternative to cable/fiber during short leases.

Implications

• Carriers: Prioritize mid‑band 5G capacity, semester-timed promotions, and stadium/venue optimizations; maintain flexible capacity (COWs) for events.
• Public sector/university: Continue campus Wi‑Fi expansion and fiber backhaul to stabilize game-day and semester peaks; coordinate right-of-way for densification near student housing.
• Developers/property managers: Invest in in‑building coverage (repeaters/small cells) and high-capacity Wi‑Fi to reduce churn and complaints.

Notes

• Figures are estimates based on typical adoption rates and local demographics; semester cycles and event schedules can shift usage materially versus statewide norms.

Here’s a concise, locally grounded snapshot. Because platforms rarely publish county-level figures, percentages reflect the best available U.S. benchmarks (Pew Research Center 2024; DataReportal 2024) adjusted to Brazos County’s unusually young profile (Texas A&M).

Quick context

• Population: ≈245,000 (Bryan–College Station anchor; median age ≈26; very large 18–24 cohort due to Texas A&M).
• Implication: Platform mix skews younger than the U.S. average; video- and DM-first behaviors dominate.

Estimated user base

• Social media users (13+): ≈175,000–195,000 (≈70–80% of total population).
• Daily time: roughly 2+ hours on social (in line with U.S. average).

Adoption by age (adults)

• 18–29: 90–95% use at least one platform; heaviest multi-platform use.
• 30–49: ~85–90%.
• 50–64: ~70–80%.
• 65+: ~55–65%. Notes on local age mix: 18–24 likely represents ~30% of local social users (well above U.S. share).

Gender breakdown (usage)

• Overall adoption near parity (male ≈ female).
• Platform skews:
  • Female-leaning: Instagram (slight), Snapchat (slight), Pinterest (strong).
  • Male-leaning: Reddit (strong), X/Twitter (moderate), LinkedIn (slight).
  • WhatsApp: broadly balanced; strong among international and Hispanic users.

Most-used platforms (adults; county estimates anchored to Pew 2024, nudged for youthful skew)

• YouTube: ~83–88% of adults
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~50–55% overall; 18–29 ≈75–80%
• TikTok: ~35–40% overall; 18–29 ≈60–70%
• Snapchat: ~30–35% overall; 18–29 ≈60–70%
• Pinterest: ~32–38% (female-skew)
• LinkedIn: ~28–32% (higher among grad students/research/professionals)
• WhatsApp: ~25–35% (international/Hispanic communities)
• X/Twitter: ~20–25%
• Reddit: ~20–25%
• Nextdoor: ~15–20% overall (higher in established homeowner neighborhoods; minimal among students)

Behavioral trends to know

• Video-first consumption: Reels/TikTok/Shorts drive discovery; Instagram Reels often outperforms static posts.
• DM and ephemeral habits: Instagram DMs and Snapchat are core for 18–24 daily communication; Stories > grid posts for reach.
• Group and marketplace culture: Facebook Groups/Marketplace for housing, buy/sell, local services; WhatsApp and Discord/GroupMe for classes, labs, clubs.
• Event-driven spikes: Texas A&M athletics (game days), move-in/out, graduation, severe weather, and campus news push surges on X, Instagram, and Reddit (r/aggies, r/collegestation).
• Timing: Peaks most evenings 7–11 pm; midday bumps between classes (late morning and early afternoon, Mon–Thu).
• Local info channels: Nextdoor for neighborhood issues (Bryan/owner-heavy areas), X/Reddit for real-time updates, Facebook groups for community organizing.
• Culture and language: English/Spanish bilingual content performs well; WhatsApp, Instagram, and YouTube are strong among international students/scholars.

Sources and method

• Benchmarks: Pew Research Center “Social Media Use in 2024,” DataReportal: Digital 2024: USA.
• Local adjustment: Brazos County age structure (ACS/Census) and Texas A&M enrollment profile to weight platform shares younger.