Burleson County

Which data vintage would you like me to use?

• 2020 Decennial Census (official counts; best for population and race)
• Latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023) from the Census Bureau (best for age, sex, households; includes margins of error)

If you specify the source/year, I’ll provide concise figures for population size, age, gender, racial/ethnic composition, and household data.

Burleson County, TX — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~18,300 residents (2023 est.); density ~27 people/sq mi across ~670 sq mi.
• Estimated email users (adults 18+): ~13,000 (about 92% of adults).
• Age distribution of adult email users:
  • 18–34: ~3.5k (≈27%)
  • 35–64: ~6.7k (≈52%)
  • 65+: ~2.8k (≈21%)
• Gender split among users: roughly 50% female, 50% male (differences by gender are minimal in email adoption).
• Digital access and usage:
  • Households with any internet: ~85% (ACS-style measure).
  • Fixed broadband subscription: ~78–80% of households; daily email use ≈60% of adults (national benchmark).
  • Mobile-only internet households: ~12–15%.
  • Older adults (65+) show slightly lower email adoption and less frequent use than younger groups.
• Connectivity/density facts:
  • Best fixed broadband (100+ Mbps/fiber or cable) clusters in and around Caldwell and Somerville and along TX-21/TX-36; outer rural areas depend more on DSL/fixed wireless, with uneven 100/20 Mbps and gigabit availability.
  • Rural dispersion and lower housing density increase last-mile costs, contributing to pockets of slower speeds and lower subscription rates.

Sources blended from recent ACS internet subscription data, FCC availability maps, and Pew email adoption benchmarks.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Burleson County, Texas (with emphasis on what differs from state-level)

Context

• Rural county in the Brazos Valley with roughly 18–19k residents and a higher median age than Texas overall. Population is concentrated in/around Caldwell and Somerville, with many residents commuting toward Bryan–College Station.

User estimates (modeled)

• Adult base: ~13.5k–15k adults (assuming ~75–80% of population is 18+).
• Mobile phone users (any mobile): ~12.5k–14k adults (roughly 92–95% ownership; slightly below Texas’ big-metro levels).
• Smartphone users: ~10.8k–12.6k adults (about 80–86% adoption; lower than Texas’ urban counties that often run near 90%+).
• Cellular-data-only home internet households: likely higher than the Texas average. Expect roughly 10–14% of households relying primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet in the county versus about 6–8% at the state level. This reflects gaps in wired broadband and the availability of fixed wireless. How these differ from state-level: smartphone adoption and overall mobile ownership are a bit lower than Texas averages; reliance on mobile or fixed wireless for home connectivity is higher.

Demographic and usage patterns (key differences from Texas)

• Age: Seniors make up a larger share than the statewide profile. Smartphone adoption among 65+ is materially lower (often 60–75%), which drags the county average below the state’s. Feature phones and basic LTE phones remain more common among older adults.
• Income and plans: Median incomes are below the Texas average; prepaid and MVNO usage is correspondingly higher. More price-sensitive plans, longer device replacement cycles, and a larger mix of refurbished/used phones than in metro Texas.
• Race/ethnicity: Lower share of Hispanic/Latino residents than the Texas average. That typically means fewer bilingual device/plan needs than in major Texas metros, though Spanish-language support is still relevant.
• Work patterns: More outdoor/field work than urban Texas. Practical effects include stronger preference for carriers with better rural coverage, interest in rugged devices, and continued importance of voice/SMS and hotspot tethering where home broadband is weak.
• App/data usage: Median per-line mobile data use tends to be a bit lower than in urban Texas, but a noticeable minority uses very high volumes via hotspots or fixed-wireless alternatives because of limited wired broadband choices.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what stands out locally)

• 4G LTE: Broad highway and town coverage, but more dead zones and weaker indoor signal in sparsely populated areas than Texans see in cities.
• 5G:
  • Low-band 5G is fairly widespread.
  • Mid-band 5G (e.g., 2.5 GHz or C-band) is likely concentrated around Caldwell/Somerville and along major corridors; coverage footprints are smaller and speeds more variable than in Texas’ metro counties.
  • mmWave is effectively absent.
• Backhaul and capacity: Fewer fiber-fed macro sites than in urban counties; more microwave backhaul. This limits peak and busy-hour speeds compared with Texas city norms.
• Fixed wireless and satellite: Greater role in home connectivity than state average. 5G fixed wireless (where available) and WISPs help fill gaps; satellite (e.g., newer LEO options) is used in pockets with poor terrestrial service.
• Carrier balance: Residents show a stronger tilt toward carriers with proven rural coverage footprints (AT&T/Verizon) than the statewide mix, where T-Mobile’s mid-band 5G dominates many metros.
• Public safety and resiliency: FirstNet/Band 14 presence supports responders; some rural sites have generator backup, but storm-related outages can constrain capacity more than in urban Texas.

Trends to watch (relative to Texas)

• Gradual catch-up in mid-band 5G as carriers infill Caldwell/Somerville and key roads, shrinking the speed gap with metro areas—but likely on a slower timeline than state urban centers.
• Continued above-average adoption of fixed wireless for home use, especially as new 5G sites light up.
• Post-ACP funding pause effects: low-income households shifting toward lower-cost mobile plans or reducing data allowances more than the statewide average.

Notes on methodology and confidence

• Figures are estimates based on rural Texas patterns, recent national device-ownership research, and typical county-to-state deltas seen in ACS device/internet tables and FCC coverage data. For planning or grant work, validate with the latest ACS S2801/S2802 tables for Burleson County, FCC National Broadband Map, and carrier coverage maps/speed tests.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot. Direct, platform-by-platform stats aren’t published for Burleson County, so figures are estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media use, rural vs. urban differentials, and the county’s small, rural profile.

Headline size

• Population: roughly 18–19k; adults ~14–15k.
• Estimated adult social media users: ~9.5k–11k (about 65–75% of adults, slightly below national due to rural broadband/age mix).
• Teens (13–17): most are on at least one platform (≈90%+).

Most-used platforms (adults, estimated share of adult population)

• YouTube: ~75–85% (most universal; strong across all ages)
• Facebook: ~60–70% (core local network; highest daily use among 30+)
• Instagram: ~35–45% (younger adults; local creators/small biz)
• Pinterest: ~30–40% (skews female; home, crafts, recipes)
• TikTok: ~25–35% (younger adults; entertainment/local clips)
• Snapchat: ~20–30% (heaviest among teens/under-25)
• WhatsApp: ~20–25% (family, bilingual/multigenerational messaging)
• X (Twitter): ~15–20% (news/sports followers, niche creators)
• Reddit: ~15–20% (younger/male skew; hobby/problem-solving)
• Nextdoor: ~5–10% (coverage is patchy in rural areas; neighborhoods where available)

Age pattern (who’s most active, by platform)

• 13–17: YouTube 90%+; TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram each ~60–70%; Facebook minimal except for school/team pages.
• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube; heavy Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat; Reddit presence; lower Facebook posting but still use Messenger/Groups.
• 30–49: Facebook central (Groups, Marketplace), YouTube heavy; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising.
• 50–64: Facebook dominant; YouTube for how-to and news; Pinterest common.
• 65+: Facebook still primary; YouTube growing; lower on short-form apps.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Overall usage is near parity.
• Women: relatively higher on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; active in school/church/community groups and Marketplace.
• Men: relatively higher on YouTube, Reddit, X; active in sports, outdoors, automotive/AG topics.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Texas counties (applicable locally)

• Facebook Groups = the town square: school updates, youth sports, community events, lost/found pets, road/burn-ban/weather alerts, local politics.
• Marketplace is big: vehicles, farm/ranch equipment, tools, furniture—high engagement on weekends and evenings.
• YouTube for DIY/repair (home, auto, ag), product research, sermons, and high school sports highlights.
• Short-form video (TikTok/Instagram Reels) growing for local happenings, small business promos, and “rural life” content.
• Messaging splits: Facebook Messenger for most adults; Snapchat for teens/college-age; WhatsApp for family networks and group chats.
• Trust flows locally: people give more weight to posts from neighbors, coaches, pastors, and known local pages than to national outlets.
• Posting cadence: morning and early evening peaks; weather or school-related posts spike engagement; event-driven surges (festivals, sports playoffs, elections).

Notes and sources

• Built from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption by platform, age, and rural/urban splits; applied to Burleson County’s small, rural profile. Use figures as directional estimates, not exact counts.