Cochran County

Key demographics for Cochran County, Texas

• Population

  • 2,547 (2020 Census)
  • ~2,4xx (2023 Census Bureau estimate; small-population MOEs apply)

• Age

  • Median age: ~35
  • Under 18: ~28%
  • 65 and over: ~15%

• Sex

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race and ethnicity (Hispanic origin of any race shown separately)

  • Hispanic or Latino: ~60–62%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~32–34%
  • Black or African American: ~2–3%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
  • Asian: <1%
  • Two or more races/other: ~2–3%

• Households (2020/ACS 5-year)

  • Households: ~900–950
  • Average household size: ~2.7
  • Family households: ~65–70% (average family size ~3.2)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census; ACS 5-year estimates (latest available). Small sample sizes may produce wider margins of error.

Cochran County, TX — email usage snapshot

• Population and density: ~2,550 residents (2020 Census) across ~775 sq mi; ~3.3 people per sq mi. Most residents live in/around Morton; large rural areas increase last‑mile costs.
• Estimated email users: 1,400–1,700 residents. Method: apply rural internet adoption (75–85%) and high email use among internet users (90%+) to county population.
• Age pattern (approximate adoption among residents):
  • 13–17: 70–85% use email (school-driven); ~100–150 users.
  • 18–34: 90–95%.
  • 35–64: 85–92%.
  • 65+: 60–75% (many check via mobile).
• Gender split: roughly even (near 50/50 among users).
• Digital access and trends:
  • Many households are mobile‑only for internet; fixed broadband availability and speeds drop outside town centers.
  • Fixed wireless and satellite commonly fill gaps; affordability remains a constraint, especially after the 2024 lapse of the Affordable Connectivity Program.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (schools, library, municipal buildings) is an important access point for some residents.
  • Cellular service is typically strongest along main roads; coverage can be inconsistent on ranch/farm roads.
• Outlook: Gradual improvements from incremental fixed wireless upgrades; fiber buildouts, where they occur, tend to concentrate in denser blocks, leaving sparsely populated areas reliant on wireless or satellite.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Cochran County, Texas

Context and method

• Very small, rural county centered on Morton and Whiteface, with population roughly 2,400–2,700. Estimates below combine Census/ACS population structure with Pew Research cellphone/smartphone adoption benchmarks for rural areas and Texas Broadband/FCC mapping patterns for coverage. Figures are ranges, not exact counts.

Estimated users

• Adults with any cellphone: about 1,600–1,900 (roughly 92–96% of adults).
• Adult smartphone users: about 1,300–1,600 (roughly 78–86% of adults).
• Smartphone-only internet users (no fixed home broadband, rely primarily on mobile data): meaningfully higher share than Texas overall; common in lower-income and rural households. Expect a noticeable minority of adults to be smartphone-only.

Demographic usage patterns

• Age: Adoption is high among younger adults but drops among residents 65+. The county’s older age profile means overall smartphone adoption trails the Texas average.
• Ethnicity: Cochran has a majority Hispanic population. Hispanic adults’ smartphone adoption is comparable to or slightly higher than non-Hispanic white adults statewide, but local gaps in affordable home broadband increase reliance on mobile data and prepaid plans in some households.
• Income: Median incomes are lower than the Texas average, which correlates with greater use of prepaid/MVNO plans, shared data plans, and hotspotting for home connectivity.
• Language: A substantial share of Spanish-speaking households increases demand for bilingual support and plans.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile serve the area. Coverage is strongest in and around Morton/Whiteface and along main corridors (notably TX‑114 and TX‑214). Outside towns and highways, service becomes sparse, with dead zones in farm/rangeland.
• 5G: Low-band 5G is present along primary corridors; mid-band 5G capacity is more limited than in Texas metros. No mmWave.
• Capacity and performance: Fewer cell sites per square mile than the state average; networks can feel congested during events or seasons when field crews are active. Indoor coverage can be weak in metal-roof structures, making Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters common.
• Public safety/first responders: FirstNet (AT&T) coverage exists but, like commercial service, is largely corridor- and town-centric.
• Devices and plans: Higher prevalence of Android devices and prepaid/MVNO offerings versus state urban areas; hotspot devices used to backfill limited home broadband.

How Cochran County differs from Texas statewide

• Lower overall smartphone penetration due to an older age mix and lower income levels.
• Higher dependence on mobile data as a primary internet connection (smartphone-only households) because fixed broadband options are fewer and pricier per Mbps than in cities.
• Sparser tower density and larger coverage gaps away from towns and highways; residents are more likely to experience roaming or extended-service areas near the New Mexico line and in fringe zones.
• Slower rollout of mid-band 5G upgrades and fewer in-building coverage solutions compared with metro Texas.
• Greater use of prepaid/MVNO plans and signal-boosting equipment.

Implications

• Outreach, plans, and support in Spanish and English matter.
• Unlimited or high-cap mobile data, hotspot allowances, and affordable prepaid tiers see above-average demand.
• Investments that add mid-band 5G capacity and infill sites near farms, ranches, and oilfield corridors will disproportionately improve user experience versus further low-band expansions already covering highways.
• Community Wi‑Fi, fixed wireless access, and neutral-host indoor coverage can mitigate weak indoor signals and support smartphone-only households.

Below is a concise, modeled snapshot. Direct, county-level platform metrics aren’t published; figures are estimated from Cochran County demographics (small, rural, majority Hispanic) combined with recent U.S. rural/Texas patterns from large surveys (e.g., Pew Research Center, 2023–2024).

Population and estimated social users

• Population: ~2,500
• Residents age 13+: ~1,900
• Estimated active social media users (13+): 1,250–1,600 (about 65–85% of 13+)

Age mix of social media users (share of users)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–29: 20–22%
• 30–49: 34–36%
• 50–64: 22–24%
• 65+: 12–14%

Gender split of social media users

• Female: ~52–55%
• Male: ~45–48%
• Notes: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, X, Reddit.

Most‑used platforms among local social media users

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 70–80%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (concentrated among teens/20s)
• Pinterest: 25–35% (skews female, home/DIY/recipes)
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (boosted by Hispanic households and cross‑border family ties)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 3–7% (less common in sparsely populated areas)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups for school sports, church, county notices; Marketplace is active for buy/sell/trade.
• Video dominates attention: YouTube for longform/how‑to; TikTok/Instagram Reels for short, entertainment-first clips.
• Strong bilingual patterns: Many households engage in both English and Spanish; WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are primary for family coordination.
• Event-driven spikes: Local sports, festivals, weather events, and public safety updates drive the highest engagement, especially evenings and weekends.
• Younger cohorts split attention: Teens/young adults lean Snapchat and TikTok for daily communication and discovery; Instagram for identity and events.
• Older cohorts are sticky on Facebook: High loyalty, dependable reach via Groups and photo posts; link-click behavior weaker than on YouTube.
• Creator base is small but trusted: Local officials, coaches, pastors, and small businesses function as micro‑influencers; authenticity beats polish.
• Best ad/organic tactics: Geo‑targeted Facebook/Instagram, bilingual creative, short vertical video, and posting around local events; cross‑post Shorts to YouTube for incremental reach.

Method note

• Estimates reflect rural adjustments (slightly higher Facebook/Pinterest usage; slightly lower Instagram/Snap/TikTok vs urban), and a higher WhatsApp share due to the county’s Hispanic population.