Camp County

Key demographics — Camp County, Texas (latest available: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 ACS 5‑year; Population Estimates Program 2023)

• Population: ~13,300 (2023 estimate)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~39 years
  • Under 18: ~25%
  • 65 and over: ~18%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%
• Race/ethnicity (share of total population):
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~30–31%
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~50–55%
  • Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~14–16%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~4,600–4,800
  • Average household size: ~2.8
  • Family households: ~70%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70–75%

Notes: Figures are rounded; small-county ACS estimates carry margins of error.

Camp County, TX (population ≈12.5–13k; ~203 sq mi; ~60–65 people/sq mi) is largely rural, with most wired infrastructure centered on Pittsburg.

Estimated email users: 7,800–8,600 residents (about 62–70% of the total; roughly 80–90% of adults). Estimate combines rural‑Texas internet adoption (88–90% of adults) with near‑universal email use among internet users (~92–95%).

Age distribution (county): Under 18 ≈25%; 18–34 ≈19%; 35–54 ≈25%; 55–64 ≈13%; 65+ ≈18%. Among adults, email use is highest ages 18–54 (≈95%+), strong at 55–64 (≈90%+), and somewhat lower 65+ (≈80–85%), so users skew toward working‑age adults.

Gender split: Female ≈51%, male ≈49%; email usage is similar by gender, so the user base mirrors this.

Digital access trends: 65–70% of households likely subscribe to home broadband; fiber/cable are concentrated in and near Pittsburg, with many outlying areas relying on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. Cellular data coverage is good along main corridors, with spottier service in some rural pockets. Public Wi‑Fi (libraries/schools) helps bridge access gaps.

Notes: Figures are estimates based on recent census patterns, rural Texas adoption rates, and national email usage norms.

Below is a practical, decision-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Camp County, Texas, with emphasis on how local patterns diverge from statewide trends. Figures are estimates based on recent Census/ACS population structure, national/rural smartphone adoption benchmarks (e.g., Pew), and typical rural network footprints in East Texas; they should be treated as directional.

User estimates

• Population baseline: about 13,000 residents.
• Estimated unique mobile phone users: 9,000–11,000 people.
  • Rationale: adult smartphone ownership is typically 80–90% (lower in rural seniors), teen ownership is very high, and a portion of younger children have basic phones; offset by some non-users among older adults.
• Active lines likely exceed the number of users due to secondary devices and machine-to-machine lines, but multi-line take-up is lower than big-city Texas.

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns)

• Age
  • 18–34: near-saturation smartphone use; heavy app/social/video use.
  • 35–64: high adoption; pragmatic use oriented to work, navigation, finance, and messaging.
  • 65+: meaningfully lower smartphone adoption than the Texas average; larger share using basic or older smartphones, more voice/SMS reliance.
• Income and plan type
  • Median income is below the Texas average, so prepaid and budget plans have a larger share than statewide (often 5–10 percentage points higher).
  • Longer device replacement cycles; more refurbished/entry-tier Android handsets than in metro Texas.
• Race/ethnicity and language
  • Notable Hispanic community implies higher incidence of bilingual device settings and use of cross-border messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp) than in many non-Hispanic rural counties.
• Home internet status
  • Higher rate of “mobile-only” households (cellular plan but no fixed home broadband) than the Texas average, driven by patchy fixed broadband and price sensitivity.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carrier presence: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile all cover the county; strongest, most consistent service is along US‑271 and in/around Pittsburg.
• 4G and 5G footprint
  • 4G LTE is the workhorse and generally available on main roads and in town.
  • 5G is predominantly low-band; mid-band 5G (the faster layer) is limited and spotty outside the core township areas, unlike many Texas metros.
• Typical performance
  • Town centers and highway corridors: moderate to good downlink speeds; uplink often modest.
  • Outlying areas (lakes/wooded tracts/farm roads): variable signal and occasional dead zones; indoor coverage issues in metal buildings and larger homes.
• Network build characteristics
  • Fewer cell sites/small cells per square mile than urban Texas; dependence on macro towers.
  • Backhaul is a mix of fiber on main corridors and microwave elsewhere; this constrains peak capacity relative to metro Texas.
• Public access and anchors
  • Schools, library, and municipal buildings act as connectivity hubs; device hotspot loan programs are more impactful locally than in most Texas cities.
• Public safety
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence near civic/medical anchors; volunteer districts still rely on LMR with cellular as supplemental—less seamless statewide interoperability than in urban Texas.

Key ways Camp County differs from Texas overall

• Coverage and capacity
  • Lower prevalence of mid-band 5G; speeds and consistency trail metro Texas, with more location-dependent performance.
• Access patterns
  • Higher share of mobile-only households and reliance on smartphones as the primary internet connection.
  • More prepaid plans and budget devices; longer device upgrade cycles.
• Demographics and behavior
  • Lower smartphone adoption among seniors; heavier voice/SMS use in that cohort.
  • Slightly higher use of bilingual interfaces and cross-platform messaging tied to the local Hispanic community.
• Market structure
  • Fewer retail/MVNO options and promotional churn than in large Texas markets; less aggressive price competition at the edge of coverage.
• Reliability
  • More frequent indoor coverage gaps and rural dead zones, especially around lakes, dense tree cover, and low-lying areas.

Outlook (near term)

• Expect incremental improvement as carriers extend mid-band 5G along primary corridors and add backhaul capacity; gaps on secondary farm-to-market roads will persist longer.
• BEAD and other fiber builds could reduce the share of mobile-only households, changing usage from “mobile-primary” to “mobile-complementary” over the next 2–4 years.

Here’s a concise, decision-ready snapshot for Camp County, TX (small, rural county; figures are modeled estimates using U.S./Texas survey rates adjusted to local age mix).

Headline user stats

• Population: ~12.5k; residents 13+: ~10.9k
• Social media users (13+): ~7.5k–8.2k (≈68–74% of 13+; ≈60–66% of total pop)
• Gender among users: ~52% women, ~48% men

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

• 13–17: ~9%
• 18–29: ~20%
• 30–44: ~25%
• 45–64: ~32%
• 65+: ~15%

Most-used platforms (estimated monthly reach among residents 13+)

• YouTube: ~55–60%
• Facebook: ~48–54%
• Instagram: ~26–30%
• TikTok: ~24–28%
• Pinterest: ~19–23%
• Snapchat: ~16–20%
• X (Twitter): ~10–14%
• LinkedIn: ~8–12%
• WhatsApp: ~8–12%

Platform skews (practical takeaways)

• Facebook: Strongest with 30+; Groups and Marketplace dominate local info and commerce.
• YouTube: Broad across ages; heavy “how-to,” local sports highlights, music/worship.
• Instagram: 18–44; Reels drive discovery; cross-posting from FB helps.
• TikTok: Under 35; short local clips perform well (food spots, events, sports).
• Snapchat: Teens/18–24; DM-first behavior; limited ad inventory locally.
• Pinterest: Women 25–54; recipes, crafts, home/beauty.
• X: Niche—news/sports followers; limited local chatter.
• LinkedIn: Small pro audience; hiring posts still get decent local reach.
• WhatsApp: Pockets of use among Hispanic families and for group coordination.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups are the public square (weather alerts, school/athletics, church events, lost-and-found, road closures).
• Commerce: FB Marketplace is the default. Price/availability clarity boosts responses.
• Video-first: Short vertical clips (15–45s) on Reels/TikTok outperform static; live streams for ballgames and church draw spikes.
• Timing: Evenings (7–10 pm) and lunch (11:30 am–1 pm) see the heaviest engagement; Sundays and severe-weather days surge.
• Trust cues: Content from known locals, schools, churches, and first responders gets outsized engagement; anonymous pages underperform.
• Regional spillover: Audiences follow nearby Mt. Pleasant and Tyler/Longview media; 10–20 mile geo-targets capture most reachable users.
• Ads: Simple creative with faces, local landmarks, and clear offers works best; boosted FB posts often beat complex funnels for pure reach.

Notes

• Exact county-level platform stats aren’t publicly reported; figures blend national/state surveys (Pew and similar) with Camp County’s age structure and rural adjustments.