Brewster County

Here are concise, high-level demographics for Brewster County, Texas.

Population

• Total: 9,546 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022, 5-year)

• Median age: ~36–37 years
• Under 18: ~18%
• 18–24: ~16%
• 25–44: ~26%
• 45–64: ~24%
• 65+: ~16%

Sex (ACS 2018–2022)

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; Hispanic is any race)

• Hispanic/Latino: ~55–58%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~38–41%
• Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~3,900
• Average household size: ~2.2
• Family households: ~52%
• Married-couple households: ~38%
• Households with children under 18: ~22%
• Average family size: ~3.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).

Brewster County, TX — email usage snapshot

• Estimated users: 6,000–7,000 residents use email regularly. Basis: population ~9–10k; ~80–85% of adults go online in rural Texas, and >90% of online adults use email.
• Age mix of email users (approx.):
  • 18–24: 16–20% (boosted by Sul Ross State University in Alpine)
  • 25–44: 30–34%
  • 45–64: 28–32%
  • 65+: 18–22% (lower adoption than younger groups)
• Gender split: roughly even; male and female email adoption is similar.
• Digital access trends:
  • Fiber/cable concentrated in Alpine; mixed DSL/fixed wireless elsewhere; many remote homes rely on mobile hotspots or satellite (notably growing Starlink use).
  • Smartphone‑only internet households are common in rural West Texas (about 10–20%).
  • Public Wi‑Fi via libraries, schools, and Sul Ross State University supports students and visitors.
• Density/connectivity context:
  • Largest county by area in Texas (6,200 sq mi) with very low density (1–2 people per sq mi).
  • Connectivity clusters along US‑90, TX‑118, and towns (Alpine, Marathon, Terlingua); large cellular and broadband gaps persist in Big Bend National Park and ranchlands.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Brewster County, Texas (with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns)

Scale and user estimates

• Population base: roughly 9,500–10,000 residents spread across 6,000+ square miles, with Alpine as the hub and much sparser settlement in Marathon, Terlingua/Study Butte, and the ranch country.
• Estimated unique mobile users: 7,500–8,500 residents carry a mobile phone. Of these, about 6,300–7,000 are smartphone users. These ranges reflect lower rural adoption among older adults, offset by college-age users at Sul Ross State University and smartphone-only households outside Alpine.
• Seasonal surge: Visitor traffic to Big Bend National Park/Big Bend Ranch State Park can temporarily add several thousand transient users during peak months (fall–spring), meaning network load at times is driven more by tourism than by the resident base—unlike much of Texas, where resident demand dominates.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age mix “barbell”: The county skews older than Texas overall, which tends to reduce smartphone adoption, but Sul Ross students and service workers in Alpine raise youth/young-adult usage. Net effect: slightly lower smartphone penetration than Texas overall, but heavier data use pockets near the campus and downtown Alpine.
• Ethnicity and plans: A larger Hispanic share than the state average and a sizable service-sector workforce translate into higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and family/shared lines. Prepaid/MVNO penetration is materially higher than the Texas average.
• Smartphone-only internet: Due to limited fixed broadband outside Alpine/Marathon, a higher share of households are “smartphone-only” for home internet compared with Texas overall. This raises mobile data dependence in outlying areas even while average speeds are lower.

How usage differs from Texas overall

• Adoption rate: Adult smartphone adoption is a few points lower than the Texas average (Texas is around the high 80s to low 90s percent; Brewster is more often in the low-to-mid 80s), primarily because of age structure and patchy coverage outside towns.
• Plan mix: Prepaid/MVNO share is higher (commonly 40–50% locally vs roughly one-third statewide), reflecting price sensitivity and variable work/tourism seasons.
• Device dependence: A larger slice of households rely on mobile data as their primary or only internet connection, unlike metro Texas where fixed broadband is more ubiquitous.
• Seasonal network stress: Capacity constraints appear episodically (holidays, festivals, park peak seasons), a pattern less pronounced in most Texas metros.
• Multi-carrier strategies: Residents are more likely to keep a backup line/SIM or rely on Wi‑Fi calling due to dead zones—less common behavior in urban/suburban Texas.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Coverage footprint:
  • Strongest in Alpine (downtown, campus, hospital corridor) with low-band 5G and solid LTE from major carriers; improving but still spotty in Marathon; limited to highway corridors around Terlingua/Study Butte.
  • Large no-service areas persist in Big Bend National Park/State Park and along the River Road; coverage is far less continuous than the state norm.
• Spectrum and performance:
  • Networks lean on low-band spectrum for reach; mid-band 5G is limited and mostly town-centered. That yields better coverage than capacity in rural stretches, with typical rural LTE speeds well below Texas metro averages.
  • Backhaul outside Alpine often uses microwave links; fiber-fed sites are concentrated in town. When microwave backhaul is constrained or during power events, speeds and reliability degrade faster than in fiber-rich urban Texas.
• Infrastructure owners and local providers:
  • AT&T/FirstNet has notable presence for public safety and along key highways; Verizon maintains broad LTE coverage; T-Mobile’s best performance is in Alpine and along US‑90, with rapid drop-off off-corridor. Residents commonly choose the carrier that best serves their immediate area rather than price/features alone.
  • Big Bend Telephone (BBT) and regional ISPs provide fiber and fixed broadband mainly in Alpine and parts of Marathon; beyond that, fixed service options thin out, reinforcing mobile dependence.
• Redundancy and power:
  • Fewer sites and long distances mean single-site outages have outsized impact. Backup power exists on key towers, but extended outages or backhaul cuts can isolate communities—more acute than in grid-dense Texas metros.
• Public safety and tourism:
  • FirstNet Band 14 improves coverage for responders relative to consumer networks in some remote segments.
  • Park visitation concentrates demand at a small number of sectors/trailheads where temporary congestion is common.

Practical implications for users and planners

• Expect town-centric 5G and highway LTE, with planning for dead zones away from corridors; Wi‑Fi calling and offline maps are essential tools.
• For residents outside Alpine/Marathon, mobile service often doubles as home internet; policies and investments that add fiber backhaul to rural cell sites can yield outsized benefits versus urban Texas.
• Seasonal capacity planning (special events, park peaks) matters more here than in most of the state.
• Cross-border note: Along the Rio Grande, phones may sometimes see Mexican networks; users should manage roaming settings.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Figures are estimates derived from public datasets (American Community Survey device/Internet indicators, statewide adoption benchmarks, and carrier-reported coverage) adjusted for Brewster County’s population, age mix, settlement pattern, and tourism. Exact carrier performance varies by micro-location and time.

Brewster County, TX social media usage (short breakdown, 2025 estimate)

Snapshot

• Population: ~9.3–9.5k (2020 Census baseline); residents 13+ ~7.7–8.1k.
• Estimated social media users: 6.0k–6.6k (≈64–70% of total population; ≈80–85% of residents 13+). Mobile-first usage dominates.

Age mix of social users (share of users; est.)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–24: 18–22% (boost from Sul Ross State University)
• 25–34: 18–20%
• 35–44: 15–17%
• 45–64: 22–24%
• 65+: 11–13%

Gender of social users (est.)

• Women: 51–54%
• Men: 46–49%
• Nonbinary/other: <1%

Most-used platforms (share of social users; overlapping)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 72–78%
• Instagram: 42–50%
• TikTok: 35–45%
• Snapchat: 20–28% (skews 13–24)
• WhatsApp: 18–25% (common in bilingual households)
• LinkedIn: 12–18%
• X/Twitter: 10–15%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 5–8%

Behavioral trends

• Community-first: Facebook Groups/Pages are the hub for local news, school sports, road/weather/wildfire updates, and buy‑sell‑trade. Marketplace is heavily used for housing, vehicles, and services.
• Tourism-driven patterns: Instagram/TikTok content around Big Bend National Park drives seasonal spikes (spring/fall). User-generated scenery and travel tips outperform polished promos.
• Mobile constraints: >90% of access via smartphones; short vertical video and photo carousels outperform long, data-heavy content.
• Bilingual engagement: English/Spanish posts and captions extend reach; WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are common for family and community coordination.
• Timing: Engagement peaks 7–9 am and 7–10 pm; weekends (late morning to afternoon) are strong for events and marketplace activity.
• Trust and relevance: Local faces, school/college tie-ins, practical info, and event posts earn higher interaction than generic brand ads.
• Event-centric sharing: Alpine, Marathon, Terlingua events, alerts, and last-minute updates get rapid shares and comments.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are modeled estimates using county population, rural Texas patterns, Pew Research platform penetration (2023–2024), and the local university’s impact. Exact county-level platform stats are not officially published.