Cass County

Here are the latest readily available Census stats for Cass County, Texas (primarily 2019–2023 ACS 5‑year; population estimate as of 2023). Figures are rounded for readability.

Population

• Total population (2023 estimate): ~30,000

Age

• Median age: ~45 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone (non-Hispanic): ~66–67%
• Black or African American alone: ~22–23%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~5–6%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.5–0.7%
• Asian alone: ~0.3%
• Other races: ~0.5%

Households

• Number of households: ~12,000–12,300
• Average household size: ~2.4–2.5 persons

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5‑year estimates (tables DP05, S1101) and 2023 Population Estimates Program (PEP) for total population. Data accessible at data.census.gov and census.gov.

Cass County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Email users: ~20,000–23,000 residents use email at least monthly (≈65–75% of the population; ≈80–90% of adults).
• Age pattern: 18–29: ~95–98% use email; 30–49: ~95–98%; 50–64: ~88–93%; 65+: ~70–80%. The county skews older, so seniors account for a larger share of non-users.
• Gender split: Near parity (about 48–52% each); women slightly more likely to check email daily.
• Digital access trends: About 70–80% of households have home broadband; 10–15% are smartphone‑only; 15–25% lack home internet. Fiber/cable service is concentrated in and around Atlanta, Linden, and Queen City; many outlying areas rely on DSL or fixed wireless with lower speeds. LTE/low‑band 5G cover main corridors; patchy service persists in more remote/forested zones.
• Local density/connectivity: Rural county with low density (~30–35 people per sq. mile, far below the Texas average), raising last‑mile costs and slowing fiber buildouts; state/federal programs (e.g., BEAD) are driving incremental expansion.

Notes: Figures are modeled from ACS/FCC broadband data and Pew email adoption norms, scaled to Cass County’s size and age profile.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Cass County, Texas (focus on ways it differs from statewide patterns)

High-level picture

• Cass County is small, rural, and older than Texas overall. That combination produces slightly lower smartphone penetration, more coverage variability outside towns, and heavier use of prepaid plans than the state average. Where fixed broadband is scarce or costly, residents lean more on mobile data—but less on “smartphone‑only” access than urban Texans because of the county’s older age profile.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude, method-based)

• Population context: ~30,000 residents; ~77–79% are adults.
• Adults using any mobile phone: about 21,000–22,000 (≈92–94% of adults; slightly below Texas, which tracks near the national high-90s for any cellphone ownership).
• Adult smartphone users: about 19,500–20,500 (≈83–87% of adults; Texas average is closer to ~88–90%).
• Wireless-only households (no landline): roughly 60–65% of ~12,000 households, below the Texas share (which is higher in urban counties).
• Smartphone-only home internet (no home fixed broadband, rely solely on mobile): roughly 8–12% of households (lower than large Texas metros, because smartphone-only is most common among younger, more urban populations; countervailing pressure exists from limited fixed broadband in some rural areas).

Demographic patterns behind the numbers

• Age (largest driver vs state):
  • Cass County has a higher share of adults 65+. Smartphone ownership in this group is typically 65–75%, versus >90% for under-50s. This pulls down the countywide rate relative to Texas.
• Income and plan type:
  • Median household income is well below the Texas median. That correlates with more prepaid/ad-supported or data-capped plans (e.g., Cricket, Metro, Straight Talk) and careful data budgeting. It also raises sensitivity to price changes and to the wind-down of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024–2025.
• Education and digital skills:
  • Lower bachelor’s degree attainment than the Texas average is associated with slightly lower smartphone adoption and lower use of advanced features (mobile banking, telehealth video), although usage has risen across all groups since the pandemic.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • The county is predominantly non-Hispanic White with a sizable Black population and a smaller Hispanic share than Texas overall. After controlling for age/income, gaps in basic smartphone ownership by race are modest; differences show up more in plan type (prepaid vs postpaid), device age, and reliance on mobile for home internet.
• Work and mobility:
  • Jobs in timber, manufacturing, logistics, and health/education mean many users are mobile during the day and sensitive to coverage along corridors (US‑59/I‑369 future alignment, SH‑77, SH‑8, US‑67). That differs from metro Texas workers concentrated indoors on Wi‑Fi.

Digital infrastructure and performance (how the county differs from state norms)

• Coverage shape:
  • 4G LTE is broadly available, but coverage becomes spotty on low-traffic rural roads, in heavily forested areas, and around river bottoms—more so than in most Texas counties.
  • 5G is present mainly as low-band in/around towns like Atlanta, Queen City, and Linden; mid-band 5G capacity is more limited and concentrated near population clusters and US‑59. This is behind most Texas metros, where mid-band coverage is now common.
• Carriers (typical user experience, varies by location):
  • AT&T and T‑Mobile generally provide the strongest town-center coverage; T‑Mobile’s low-band blanket is common, with mid-band pockets where available. AT&T 5G is often low-band with selective capacity upgrades. Verizon coverage can be very good in specific corridors but is more variable in remote spots, often falling back to LTE.
  • Fewer redundant sites than urban Texas; single-carrier dead zones are more common, so families/businesses sometimes mix carriers to ensure reach.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • In-town: typical 5G download speeds range roughly 50–200+ Mbps where mid-band is live; uplink often 5–25 Mbps.
  • Out of town: LTE or low-band 5G frequently runs 5–40 Mbps down, 2–10 Mbps up, with occasional drops below that in fringe areas. This is lower and more variable than statewide urban medians.
• Backhaul and towers:
  • Fewer macro towers per square mile than metro counties; some sites rely on microwave backhaul. Vegetation and terrain can attenuate higher-band signals, limiting mid-band 5G reach compared with open, flat West Texas markets.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable/fiber is available in town centers but thins out quickly; legacy DSL remains in some areas. Fixed wireless (from national mobile carriers and WISPs) helps fill gaps but can be capacity constrained. Compared with Texas overall, limited fixed infrastructure nudges more residents to rely on mobile data—yet the older age mix tempers pure smartphone-only adoption.
• Public safety and reliability:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence improves coverage for first responders along main corridors. However, storm-related outages can have a larger area impact than in urban Texas due to sparser site density and fewer fiber routes.

Trends to watch (distinct from state-level)

• Slow but steady mid-band 5G infill along US‑59 and town centers; rural fill-in will lag metros, so experience will remain bifurcated (good in towns/corridors, inconsistent off-road).
• Rising dependence on mobile for backup/home internet where fiber isn’t present, but potential affordability pressure as ACP subsidies wind down—likely boosting demand for lower-cost prepaid and fixed wireless plans.
• Enterprise and public-sector demand (logistics, forestry, schools, healthcare) driving targeted small-cell or tower additions near facilities rather than uniform countywide upgrades.

Notes on methods and sources

• Estimates synthesize: recent Pew Research smartphone ownership by age/income/urbanicity; national/state wireless-only household rates; FCC Broadband Data Collection and carrier public coverage materials (2024–2025) for technology footprints; ACS demographic patterns for rural East Texas. Ranges reflect the county’s older age structure and rural context relative to Texas overall. Actual coverage and speeds vary by exact location and device.

Below is a concise, planning-ready snapshot based on Cass County’s size and rural profile, using U.S. Census population, Pew Research social media adoption (with rural adjustments), and common patterns seen in rural Texas counties. Figures are estimates intended for targeting and content planning.

County snapshot

• Population: ~30,000. Estimated 13+ population: ~25,000.
• Estimated social media users (13+): 20,000–22,000 (≈80–85% of 13+).
• Daily users: ~12,000–14,000 (≈60–65% of social users).
• Device mix: Predominantly smartphone-first (>90%).

Age mix among social media users (est.)

• 13–17: 8–9%
• 18–29: 16–18%
• 30–49: 33–36%
• 50–64: 25–27%
• 65+: 14–16%

Gender breakdown among social media users (est.)

• Female: 53–55%
• Male: 45–47%

Most-used platforms in Cass County (share of social media users; estimates)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75% (Groups/Marketplace are the stickiest features)
• Facebook Messenger: 55–60%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female 25–54)
• TikTok: 28–32% (strongest in 13–34)
• Snapchat: 22–25% (teens/20s)
• WhatsApp: 12–15%
• X/Twitter: 12–15%
• LinkedIn: 10–12% (primarily 25–44)
• Reddit: 10–12%
• Nextdoor: 3–5%

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first Facebook: Local news, church/school updates, buy/sell/trade, events, and weather alerts drive high engagement. Re-shares are common.
• Short video growth: Facebook Reels, TikTok, and IG Reels see rising reach. Best performance: 10–30 seconds, captions-on, local faces/places.
• Messenger > forms: Residents frequently message pages to ask prices, availability, or hours; include phone and Messenger CTAs.
• Evening peaks: Engagement clusters at lunch (12–1 pm) and evenings (7–9 pm); weekend mornings are solid for events and sales posts.
• Rural connectivity: Patchy broadband means smartphone, lower-bitrate video, subtitles, and clear thumbnails matter. Static image/carousel posts still perform well.
• Commerce patterns: Heavy Facebook Marketplace and group sales (tools, farm/ranch, vehicles, yard sales, crafts). Seasonal spikes around back-to-school, Friday night football, holidays, and hunting season.
• Youth split: Teens/young adults favor TikTok/Snapchat for friends and trends; Instagram for highlights and Stories. Cross-posting short clips to Facebook expands local reach.
• Trust and locality: Content from familiar local figures (schools, churches, officials, small business owners) outperforms generic creative.

Notes on method

• Estimates derive from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 platform adoption, adjusted for rural users; U.S. Census/ACS age structure for a ~30k rural Texas county; and observed rural Texas usage patterns. For campaigns, validate with platform ad-reach tools (Meta, TikTok, Snapchat) and page insights.