Brooks County

Do you want 2020 Census counts or the latest ACS 5-year estimates (2018–2022)? I can provide both; ACS is best for age, gender, and household characteristics, while the 2020 Census gives the official population count and detailed race/ethnicity.

Brooks County, TX is small and rural (about 7,000 residents; roughly 7–8 people per square mile; county seat Falfurrias). Connectivity is strongest in and around Falfurrias and along US‑281; fixed broadband thins out on ranchlands, so many households rely on mobile data.

Estimated email users: 4,000–5,200 residents. This scales national email adoption to local population while accounting for lower rural broadband subscription.

Approximate age mix of email users:

• 13–17: 6–8%
• 18–34: 22–26%
• 35–64: 45–50%
• 65+: 18–22%

Gender split among email users: roughly even (about 49–51% either way).

Digital access trends:

• Household internet subscription is likely below urban Texas levels (roughly mid‑60s to mid‑70s percent), with a higher share of smartphone‑only access (about 15–25% of households).
• Public/library Wi‑Fi and school networks remain important for students and low‑income residents.
• Fiber is limited outside town; fixed wireless and 4G/5G fill gaps. Affordability pressures increased after the federal ACP subsidy wind‑down in 2024.
• Adoption is slowly rising as state/federal rural broadband projects expand in South Texas.

Notes: Figures are modeled estimates using ACS demographics and national email usage rates, adjusted for rural connectivity.

Below is a concise, county-focused snapshot built from public demographic patterns for rural South Texas and typical carrier/network buildouts in sparsely populated areas. Treat figures as directional estimates to guide planning; verify with the latest carrier maps, FCC/Texas Broadband Office data, and local institutions.

Overview

• Context: Brooks County is small and rural (roughly 7,000–7,500 residents; county seat: Falfurrias), overwhelmingly Hispanic/Latino, with lower median income and higher poverty than the Texas average. These factors shape how people access and pay for mobile service.

Estimated mobile phone users

• Unique mobile users: about 4,800–5,600 residents use a mobile phone (adults plus a share of teens).
• Smartphone users: roughly 4,100–5,000 (about 85–90% of mobile users).
• Prepaid vs. postpaid: prepaid likely 45–55% of lines (higher than Texas overall, commonly ~30–40%), driven by income variability, credit constraints, and preference for cost control.
• Mobile-only internet: an estimated 25–35% of households rely primarily on smartphones/hotspots for home internet, exceeding the statewide share, due to limited or costly wired broadband options.
• Device mix and plans: budget Android devices and MVNOs are more prevalent than in metro Texas; hotspot add-ons are common for homework and seasonal work needs.

Demographic and usage patterns

• Ethnicity/language: a heavily Hispanic population means high adoption of WhatsApp, Facebook/Instagram, and SMS/MMS for family and cross‑community communication; Spanish-language plans/support matter more than in many Texas metros.
• Age and income: older residents and lower incomes modestly depress top‑tier smartphone adoption and premium data plans versus the state; however, necessity keeps overall mobile phone ownership high. Shared devices and data-conserving behaviors (Wi‑Fi offload when available, SD video streaming) are more common.
• Youth: school-age users often rely on district devices, public Wi‑Fi, or family hotspots—smartphone dependence for homework is higher than the Texas average in wired‑poor neighborhoods.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro coverage pattern: service concentrates along US‑281 and the city of Falfurrias. Outside these corridors—on ranchlands and sparsely populated tracts—coverage becomes spotty, with larger dead zones than the Texas average.
• Technology mix:
  • 4G LTE remains the workhorse countywide.
  • Low‑band/sub‑6 5G is present mainly along highways and near town; wide‑area 5G is less consistent than in urban Texas. Mid‑band 5G capacity is limited; mmWave is effectively absent.
• Carriers:
  • AT&T and Verizon typically offer the strongest rural footprints; AT&T’s FirstNet buildouts often improve coverage around public safety and highway checkpoints.
  • T‑Mobile’s low‑band 5G helps along corridors but can drop to LTE off‑corridor.
  • MVNO performance tracks the host network, with potential deprioritization during congestion.
• Backhaul and towers:
  • Fiber backhaul follows highway/utility rights‑of‑way; outlying sites may rely on microwave links. Tower density is low off the main corridor, which heightens capacity and reliability differences versus metro Texas.
• Home broadband context:
  • Fewer fiber/cable options than statewide; fixed wireless ISPs and satellite are more prevalent. This pushes higher smartphone/hotspot reliance than Texas overall.
  • Anchor institutions (schools, library) are key connectivity hubs; E‑Rate funded upgrades tend to deliver good on‑premise Wi‑Fi, but after-hours access depends on site policies and parking-lot reach.
• Resilience:
  • Weather and power events can isolate outlying areas more than in cities; corridor sites restore first, widening temporary digital divides during outages.

How Brooks County differs most from the Texas statewide picture

• Higher reliance on prepaid plans and MVNOs.
• Higher share of mobile-only (smartphone/hotspot) households due to sparse wired broadband.
• More pronounced coverage gaps away from highways and population centers.
• 5G availability is mostly low-band and corridor-bound; mid-band capacity and overall speeds lag urban Texas.
• Greater importance of Spanish-language support and apps like WhatsApp for day-to-day communication.
• Public anchor institutions and school hotspots play an outsized role in bridging access.

Planning implications

• For carriers: prioritize mid‑band 5G and additional LTE sectors around Falfurrias and along US‑281; add fill‑in sites or small cells at community anchors; expand FirstNet/public safety coverage to ranchlands.
• For public agencies/ISPs: target BEAD/USDA/RDOF-type funds to extend fiber from corridors to neighborhoods; support fixed wireless where fiber is impractical; sustain after‑hours public Wi‑Fi.
• For service/program design: offer affordable, Spanish‑forward plans, robust hotspot options, and device financing that works for prepaid users.

Note on validation

• Cross-check these estimates with: latest Census/American Community Survey for demographics; FCC broadband and mobile coverage maps; Texas Broadband Development Office maps; carrier 5G/LTE maps; local school district and library connectivity reports.

Note: County-level platform metrics aren’t formally published; figures below are modeled estimates for Brooks County, TX (≈7.3k residents) using recent Pew/industry data adjusted for rural and Hispanic‑majority communities.

User stats

• Estimated social media users (13+): 4,200–5,000 residents
  • Adults (18+): 70–80% use at least one platform
  • Teens (13–17): ~90%+ use at least one platform
• Access pattern: smartphone-first; many “smartphone-only” internet users; home broadband adoption below metro averages

Age groups (share of each age group using social media; local mix of users in parentheses)

• 13–17: 90–95% (≈12–15% of local social users)
• 18–29: 90–95% (≈20–25%)
• 30–49: 85–90% (≈30–35%)
• 50–64: 70–75% (≈18–22%)
• 65+: 45–55% (≈10–15%)

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Overall user base is roughly balanced male/female
• Platform skews:
  • Facebook, Instagram, TikTok: modest female skew (≈55–60% female among active users)
  • YouTube, X (Twitter): modest male skew (≈55–60% male)
  • WhatsApp: near‑balanced

Most‑used platforms in Brooks County (share of local social media users; ranges reflect uncertainty)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 65–75%
• WhatsApp: 35–50% (notably high among Spanish‑speaking households)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% overall; 60–70% among teens
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited rural coverage)

Behavioral trends

• Community first: Facebook Groups and Pages for school sports, church events, county updates, weather/emergency info; strong engagement with familiar local voices
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell/trade groups drive most social commerce; businesses use posts + Messenger/WhatsApp for inquiries rather than online checkout
• Messaging-centric: Heavy WhatsApp and Messenger use for family, work crews, and event coordination; bilingual (English/Spanish) content performs best
• Content formats: Short, mobile-friendly video (Facebook Reels, TikTok, YouTube Shorts); data caps/bandwidth constraints favor shorter clips and lower resolutions
• Timing: Peak engagement evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; spikes during storms, road closures, school announcements
• Trust patterns: Lower interaction with national influencers; higher with micro‑influencers (teachers, coaches, local business owners)
• Safety/education: Older users concentrate on Facebook and are more exposed to scams; community pages with active moderators fare better