Caldwell County

Key demographics — Caldwell County, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau; primarily 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates; population estimate as of 2023)

• Population: ~50,000 (2023 estimate). 2020 Census count: 45,883.
• Age:
  • Median age: ~35 years
  • Under 18: ~26%
  • 18–64: ~61%
  • 65 and over: ~13%
• Sex:
  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity (Hispanic is of any race):
  • Hispanic or Latino: ~50–52%
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~37–40%
  • Black or African American: ~5–6%
  • Asian: ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
  • Two or more races/Other: ~2–3%
• Households and housing:
  • Households: ~17,000
  • Average household size: ~3.0 persons
  • Family households: ~75–77% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~35–37%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70% (renters ~30%)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; 2020 Census (DHC); Vintage 2023 Population Estimates. Figures rounded; ACS values have margins of error.

Email usage in Caldwell County, TX (estimates)

• Estimated users: 38,000–44,000 residents. Basis: ~50,000 population, ~85–90% internet adoption, and ~90–95% of internet users use email.
• Age distribution of email users (approx.): 13–17: 6%; 18–29: 20%; 30–49: 34%; 50–64: 24%; 65+: 16%. Adoption is near‑universal for ages 18–64 and modestly lower for 65+.
• Gender split: Roughly even (about 49–51% men vs. women); no material usage gap by gender observed in national data.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband subscription likely 75–85% of households; 15–20% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Wired speeds/availability are strongest in and around towns (e.g., Lockhart, Luling); rural areas more often rely on fixed wireless or satellite.
  • 4G/5G coverage along major corridors (SH‑130/US‑183) supports mobile email; speeds and reliability drop in sparsely populated areas.
• Local density/connectivity context: Roughly 85–95 people per square mile across ~550 sq mi, with many dispersed households—conditions that raise last‑mile costs and correlate with lower wired subscription rates than nearby urban counties (e.g., Travis/Hays).

Notes: Figures are derived from ACS population patterns for Caldwell County, Texas rural broadband trends, and national email adoption rates (e.g., Pew). Estimates should be treated as directional.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Caldwell County, Texas (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)

Context and scale

• County profile: Semi-rural, fast-growing commuter county in the Austin-San Marcos corridor anchored by Lockhart and Luling; population roughly 50,000–55,000.
• Estimated mobile users: About 40,000–45,000 residents use a mobile phone; 38,000–42,000 use smartphones. This reflects high adoption overall, but slightly below urban Texas rates.

How Caldwell County differs from Texas overall

Adoption and plan mix

• Mobile-only internet dependence is higher: Estimated 25–30% of households rely primarily on smartphones/hotspots for home internet, vs roughly 18–22% at the state level. This is driven by patchy fixed broadband outside town centers and cost considerations.
• Prepaid share is higher: Roughly 35–40% of lines are prepaid in Caldwell vs about 25–30% statewide, reflecting a larger share of cost-sensitive and credit-averse users.
• Android skew: Android handsets likely hold a modest majority (about 55–60%) vs a more even split or iOS edge in Texas’ large metros.

Demographic nuances that shape usage

• Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino residents make up a larger share (about 45–50%) than the state average. This correlates with:
  • Higher use of WhatsApp, Facebook, and bilingual messaging.
  • Greater prevalence of family plan clustering and prepaid lines.
• Income and education: Median household income sits below the Texas median and bachelor’s attainment is lower, both associated with:
  • Higher mobile-only reliance for school/work.
  • Greater hotspot use and data-capped plans.
• Age mix: Slightly higher share of 65+ than Texas overall; estimated smartphone adoption among seniors is 60–70% (vs higher rates in urban Texas), widening the age-based adoption gap locally.

Usage patterns

• Heavy social/messaging: Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok dominate. Local small businesses rely on Facebook Pages and Messenger for customer contact more than in metro areas with wider website use.
• Hotspot and tethering: Above-average tethering for homework and remote work in fringe and rural zones where cable/fiber are limited.
• Commute-driven behaviors: Significant daytime usage drift into Austin/San Marcos networks; plan selection often reflects corridor coverage along US-183 and SH-130.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro coverage: All three national carriers cover town centers (Lockhart, Luling, Martindale/Maxwell areas) reliably; gaps persist on farm-to-market roads and river bottoms east/southeast of Lockhart.
• 5G profile:
  • T-Mobile: Widest mid-band 5G along main corridors and in/around towns; rural edges fall back to LTE.
  • AT&T: Countywide low-band 5G with mid-band nodes clustered near Lockhart/Luling; good FirstNet presence for public safety.
  • Verizon: Strong LTE base; mid-band 5G concentrated near population centers; rural areas often LTE-only. These footprints are less uniform than the Texas urban norm and produce lower median speeds outside towns.
• Capacity and speeds: Town centers generally achieve mid-tier 5G/LTE speeds; rural sectors see lower throughput and higher variability. Network congestion is more noticeable during school events and weekend festivals relative to urban baselines with denser small-cell builds.
• Fixed broadband interplay (drives mobile dependence):
  • Cable internet is available primarily in Lockhart and Luling; outside these, options shift to legacy DSL, fixed wireless ISPs, or satellite (Starlink uptake is higher than in cities).
  • Fiber-to-the-home exists in limited pockets and new subdivisions but is not yet countywide.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools, municipal facilities) fills gaps and reduces data-plan strain more than in metro Texas.

Estimated adoption by group (local vs state tendencies)

• Ages 13–24: 95%+ smartphone adoption locally, on par with Texas; heavier video/social use but more prepaid and family plans than metros.
• Ages 25–44: 90–95% adoption; similar to state; slightly higher hotspot reliance for WFH in rural tracts.
• Ages 45–64: 85–90% adoption; modestly below Texas metros; Android tilt and prepaid skew.
• Ages 65+: 60–70% adoption; lower than state urban areas; larger basic-phone segment persists.
• Mobile-only households: 25–30% Caldwell vs ~18–22% Texas overall.

What this means for providers and programs

• Plans with generous hotspot data, multi-line discounts, and Spanish-language support fit the market better than premium unlimited-only lineups.
• Investments that matter most locally: mid-band 5G infill between towns, additional rural macros, and school/community Wi‑Fi expansion.
• Outreach via Facebook/WhatsApp and bilingual materials is more effective than app-only or website-heavy approaches.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Figures are derived from recent ACS population/demographic patterns, statewide mobile adoption research, rural vs urban adoption differentials, and carrier coverage norms; they should be treated as informed estimates. Local field measurements and current carrier maps will refine exact coverage and speed conditions by census block.

Below is a concise, county-tailored snapshot using the latest U.S. and Texas benchmarks (Pew Research Center 2024 social media adoption and ACS demographics) scaled to Caldwell County’s size and makeup. Figures are modeled estimates, not direct county-measured analytics.

Quick context

• Population: ~50,000; adults (18+): ~37,000.
• Estimated adult social media users: ~28,000–31,000 (≈75–83% adoption).
• Frequency: ≈65–70% of adult users check at least one platform daily (national benchmark).

Age mix (of social media users, estimated)

• 18–34: ~35–40% of users. Heavy on TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube; lighter on Facebook.
• 35–54: ~35–40%. Uses Facebook, Instagram, YouTube; growing TikTok use.
• 55+: ~20–25%. Primarily Facebook and YouTube; lower on TikTok/Snapchat.

Gender breakdown (overall and by platform)

• Overall users ≈ balanced (about 50/50).
• Skews: Pinterest female-leaning; Facebook slightly female-leaning; YouTube, Reddit, and X (Twitter) male-leaning.

Most-used platforms among adults in Caldwell County (modeled reach)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~60–70%
• Instagram: ~40–50%
• TikTok: ~30–40% (higher among under-35 and Hispanic users)
• WhatsApp: ~25–35% (driven by Hispanic and bilingual networks)
• Snapchat: ~20–30% (concentrated under 30)
• Pinterest: ~25–35% (strong among women 25–54)
• X (Twitter): ~15–25%
• Reddit: ~15–25%
• Nextdoor: ~5–10% (primarily in Lockhart/Martindale neighborhoods)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first usage: High engagement with Facebook Groups for local news, school sports, weather and outages, buy/sell/trade, civic updates, and event info (fairs, festivals, high school activities).
• Local commerce: Small businesses lean on Facebook and Instagram for reach; short-form video (Reels/TikTok) performs well for food/BBQ, services, and real estate.
• Bilingual engagement: Notable Spanish/English usage; WhatsApp and Facebook groups are common for family, church, and community coordination.
• Youth behavior: Under-30s gravitate to TikTok/Snapchat for trends, local eats, and nightlife; DMs are the default contact method.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for DIY, automotive, outdoors, church services, and how-to content; short-form video drives discovery across platforms.
• Timing: Evenings (7–10 pm) and weekend afternoons see the strongest local engagement; school-year calendars influence peaks (games, performances).
• Trust and source preference: Residents respond to familiar local pages, schools, churches, first responders, and city/county offices; creator content with a local face outperforms generic ads.

Notes on methodology

• Estimates apply national platform adoption (Pew 2024) and known demographic skews (age, rurality, Hispanic share) to Caldwell County’s population profile; they should be treated as planning ranges, not exact measurements.