Briscoe County

Here are the latest Census/ACS figures for Briscoe County, Texas. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census for total population; 2018–2022 ACS 5‑year estimates for breakdowns) and rounded.

• Population size (2020): 1,435

Age

• Median age: ~45 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~22–23%

Gender

• Male: ~51–52%
• Female: ~48–49%

Race/ethnicity (shares of total population)

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~35–36%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~57–59%
• Black or African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Asian: <1%
• Two or more races/other, non-Hispanic: ~3–5%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~600–630
• Average household size: ~2.3–2.4
• Family households: ~380–400
• Average family size: ~3.0
• Households with children under 18: ~25–30%
• Individuals living alone: ~28–32% (including ~10–13% age 65+ living alone)

Note: Due to the county’s small population, ACS margins of error are relatively large.

Briscoe County snapshot (estimates)

• Context: ~1,460 residents over ~900 sq mi (≈1.6 people/sq mi). Extremely rural; connectivity strongest in and near Silverton, weaker across ranchland.

• Estimated email users: 900–1,100 residents use email at least monthly. Method: 2020 Census population × adult share (~75–80%) × email adoption among adults (≈80–90% in rural areas, based on Pew-style national norms adjusted for rural access).

• Age mix of email users:

  • 18–34: ~15–20%
  • 35–54: ~35–40%
  • 55–64: ~15–20%
  • 65+: ~20–25% Older skew reflects rural age structure; seniors use email but at slightly lower rates than mid‑life adults.

• Gender split of users: roughly balanced, ~49–51% male/female.

• Digital access trends:

  • Household broadband subscription likely around 65–80% (rural‑TX range); notable share of smartphone‑only internet users (~15–25%).
  • Fixed broadband is limited outside town centers; many rely on fixed wireless or satellite. Mobile LTE/5G coverage is better along main highways, patchy in remote areas.
  • Ongoing fiber expansions via state/federal programs (e.g., BEAD/RDOF) are improving availability, which should raise email adoption further.

Notes: Figures are approximations using 2020 Census, rural Texas ACS patterns, and national email‑adoption research.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Briscoe County, Texas (small, rural Panhandle county; 2020 Census population ≈1,435)

User estimates (transparent assumptions; ranges shown)

• Adult population: ~1,100–1,180 (assuming 78–82% of residents are 18+, typical for rural counties).
• Any mobile phone users: ~1,000–1,120 adults (assuming 90–95% have a mobile phone; Pew national/rural patterns).
• Smartphone users: ~840–960 adults (assuming 75–82% smartphone adoption in rural areas; lower than Texas’ high‑80s).
• Households: ~600–650 (population divided by typical rural household size ~2.2–2.4).
• Smartphone-only internet households: roughly 110–180 (about 18–28% of households relying on smartphones without fixed broadband; higher than Texas’ mid‑teens share).

Demographic patterns shaping usage (compared with Texas overall)

• Older age profile: Briscoe has a notably higher share of seniors than the Texas average. Effects: slightly lower smartphone adoption; more basic/feature-phone retention; heavier reliance on voice/text and simpler apps; longer device replacement cycles.
• Income and affordability: Lower median incomes than the state average tend to increase prepaid/MVNO use, multi-line family plans, and cost-sensitive data plans; higher propensity to be mobile‑only for home internet.
• Language/household composition: A meaningful Hispanic/Latino presence (smaller absolute numbers but significant locally) drives demand for bilingual customer support and apps; multi‑generational households can concentrate data usage on a few unlimited lines.
• Mobility patterns: Daily commuting is limited; usage spikes align more with farm/ranch work, school activities, and tourism to Caprock Canyons State Park, rather than urban rush-hour patterns typical in Texas metros.

Digital infrastructure notes (what differs from state-level)

• Coverage footprint: Macro LTE coverage generally tracks highways (e.g., SH‑86/SH‑207) and the county seat (Silverton). Terrain (canyons/mesas) and large ranchlands create dead zones—more prevalent than in most Texas counties.
• 5G profile: Low‑band 5G is present intermittently via national carriers, but mid‑band capacity (the driver of faster 5G) is sparse; mmWave is effectively absent. Users commonly experience 4G LTE or low‑band 5G with modest speeds—well below Texas metro norms.
• Tower density and backhaul: Fewer sites per square mile and reliance on microwave backhaul in places mean greater variability in speeds and indoor coverage, and longer time-to-repair after storms—contrasting with fiber-fed, denser urban networks.
• In-building service: Metal-roof homes and distance from towers make Wi‑Fi calling a key workaround; external antennas/boosters are more commonly used than at the state level.
• Carrier mix: AT&T and Verizon typically provide the broadest rural footprint; T‑Mobile’s coverage is improving but can be patchy outside town clusters. MVNOs work where their host networks do, but lack of roaming priority can affect peak-time performance.
• Public safety and resilience: Weather and power events can isolate parts of the county; residents disproportionately depend on battery backups, radios, and satellite as fallbacks compared with most Texans.

Usage trends that diverge from Texas statewide

• Lower smartphone penetration and app intensity; higher persistence of basic phones.
• Higher share of mobile‑only home internet and hotspot use due to limited, costly, or absent wired broadband options.
• More prepaid/MVNO adoption and data-frugal behaviors (e.g., offline media, conservative auto‑updates).
• Seasonal and event-driven traffic spikes (tourism, school sports, harvest) instead of urban commuter peaks.
• Greater reliance on Wi‑Fi calling, signal boosters, and outdoor use for reliable voice/data.

Notes on methodology and confidence

• Population anchor: 2020 Decennial Census for Briscoe County (≈1,435). Adult share, ownership, and smartphone-only rates use national/rural patterns (Pew Research Center and ACS tendencies) to produce conservative local ranges. For planning or investment decisions, validate with the FCC National Broadband Map, carrier coverage tools, drive tests, and the latest ACS 5‑year county tables.

Briscoe County, TX — social media snapshot (estimates)

Context

• Small, rural county (~1.5K residents). Rural usage tends to lag urban/suburban by a few points; Facebook and YouTube dominate.
• Figures below are directional estimates derived from national/state rural patterns applied to a county this size.

How many use social media

• Total social media users: ~900–1,100 residents
• Share of total population: ~60–75% (roughly 70–85% of residents age 13+)

Most‑used platforms (share of residents 13+ using monthly)

• YouTube: 60–70%
• Facebook: 55–65% (Groups and Marketplace especially strong)
• Facebook Messenger: 45–55%
• Instagram: 20–30%
• TikTok: 18–28%
• Snapchat: 12–22% (concentrated under 30)
• WhatsApp: 8–15% (higher among Hispanic households and cross‑border families)
• X (Twitter): 5–10%
• LinkedIn: 5–10%
• Reddit: 4–8%
• Nextdoor: <5%

Age mix among social media users (share of social users)

• 13–17: 8–12%
• 18–24: 10–14%
• 25–44: 28–34%
• 45–64: 28–34%
• 65+: 16–22%

Gender breakdown

• Overall usage roughly even (about 50/50).
• Skews by platform: women over‑indexed on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men over‑indexed on YouTube/Reddit/X.

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: local news, school/sports updates, church and civic events; Marketplace for buy/sell/trade (including ag/ranch items).
• Video‑first habits: YouTube for how‑to, weather, outdoors/ag content; TikTok and Facebook Reels for short, shareable clips.
• Messaging over posting: Many residents prefer private channels (Messenger, Snapchat) and are “lurkers” on public feeds, especially 45+.
• Event‑driven spikes: Severe weather, school games, and county events cause sharp bursts in comments/shares.
• Trust/localism: Local pages (county/school/first responders) and known community members outperform national brands.
• Best times: Evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends show peak activity.
• Access constraints: Patchier connectivity and older devices can limit live video; concise, lightweight posts perform better.

Notes on methodology

• No official platform census exists at the county level; percentages are inferred from Pew Research, DataReportal, and rural Texas norms and should be used as planning ranges rather than precise counts.