Coke County

Which data vintage do you prefer?

• 2020 Decennial Census (official population count, limited detail)
• ACS 5-year estimates (most recent, e.g., 2019–2023, includes age/sex/race/household detail)

If no preference, I’ll use ACS 2019–2023 for the breakdown and cite it.

Coke County, TX has about 3,300 residents (small, rural). Using typical rural U.S./Texas adoption rates, an estimated 2,100–2,300 adults use email.

Age distribution of email users (approximate):

• 18–29: 15–20% of users (very high adoption, ~90–95%)
• 30–49: 30–35% (~90–95%)
• 50–64: 25–30% (~85–90%)
• 65+: 20–25% (~75–85%, growing via smartphones)

Gender split: roughly even (about 49–51% either way); usage rates are similar by gender.

Digital access trends:

• Fixed broadband subscription likely around 70–75% of households, with 15–20% smartphone‑only internet access.
• Many residents rely on mobile data, fixed wireless, or satellite where cable/fiber is unavailable.
• Email usage is steady to rising among older adults as mobile access improves; younger adults are near‑universal users.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Very low population density (about 3–4 people per square mile) increases last‑mile costs and limits provider competition.
• Connectivity tends to be strongest in and near Robert Lee and Bronte, with sparser options across ranchland and outlying areas.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from 2020 Census population and typical rural Texas/Pew/ACS adoption patterns; local conditions can vary by neighborhood.

Coke County, TX mobile phone usage snapshot (2025)

At-a-glance user estimates (order-of-magnitude, modeled from rural Texas benchmarks, Census population, and FCC coverage patterns)

• Population/households: ≈3,300 residents; ≈1,400 households
• Adults: ≈2,600
• Adult smartphone users: ≈2,100–2,300 (roughly 80–88% of adults; rural and older age mix pulls this below statewide rates)
• Households with at least one smartphone: ≈1,100–1,300 (about 75–90% of households)
• Households relying on mobile data as their primary home internet: ≈200–350 (about 15–25%; meaningfully higher than Texas overall)
• Wireless-only for voice (no landline): ≈50–65% of households (lower than the statewide figure because seniors retain landlines more often)

Demographic factors shaping usage (how Coke County differs from Texas overall)

• Older age structure: Share of residents 65+ is substantially higher than the state average. Effects: slightly lower smartphone adoption and app breadth; more voice/SMS reliance; slower device upgrade cycles.
• Income: Median household income is lower than the Texas median. Effects: higher use of prepaid plans, budget Android devices, shared lines, and hotspotting instead of separate home broadband.
• Ethnicity/language: Majority White non-Hispanic with a sizable Hispanic community (roughly 25–35%). Effects: strong use of Facebook, Messenger, and WhatsApp for family/work coordination; need for bilingual outreach.
• Occupations/land use: Agriculture, oilfield support, and dispersed ranch properties create demand for coverage in low-density areas and for signal boosters in metal buildings and vehicles.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what’s on the ground)

• Macro coverage: AT&T and Verizon generally provide the most consistent rural coverage; T-Mobile coverage improves in and near Bronte and Robert Lee but thins out between towns and on ranch roads.
• 5G availability: Low-band 5G is present in/near towns and along primary corridors (e.g., US-277, TX-158), but mid-band 5G capacity is limited. Outside towns, service often falls back to LTE.
• Typical speeds (real-world):
  • In-town: 5G low-band or strong LTE ≈ 30–150 Mbps down, wide variability by time of day.
  • Between towns/ranchland: LTE often 3–25 Mbps; pockets of sub‑5 Mbps or no service in low-lying or shielded areas (e.g., around Lake E.V. Spence and remote pastures).
• Backhaul: Sparse fiber routes; some towers backhauled by microwave. Limited redundancy means outages or congestion can be felt countywide during peak events.
• Fixed broadband context: Cable/fiber are limited to small footprints; legacy DSL remains but underperforms. Several WISPs serve line-of-sight locations; Starlink has meaningful adoption on ranches. Result: more households lean on mobile data for home connectivity than in metro Texas.
• Public/anchor connectivity: Schools, the county library, and city facilities provide important Wi‑Fi access; these nodes act as digital inclusion points given limited residential broadband choices.
• Resiliency: Weather and power events can impact large areas due to low site density; most macro sites have generators, but prolonged outages still affect service.

Behavioral/market trends that diverge from state-level patterns

• Higher mobile-as-primary internet: A noticeably larger share of homes depend on smartphones/hotspots for home connectivity, driven by limited wired choices.
• Plan mix: Prepaid and budget plans are more common; data caps and throttling shape behavior (more SD video, download-when-on-Wi‑Fi habits).
• Device ecosystem: Android share is higher than in urban Texas; accessory adoption (watches, tablets) is lower outside of student/educator segments.
• App usage: Heavy reliance on Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, and SMS for community and event coordination; mobile payments and advanced telehealth apps trail metro usage but are growing as coverage improves in towns.
• Coverage sensitivity: Users routinely carry multiple SIMs or use boosters to work around dead zones; venue and seasonal surges (school events, hunting season, lake traffic) can congest limited-capacity sectors.
• Affordability headwinds: The sunset of the federal ACP benefit in 2024–2025 increased effective prices for low-income households, raising churn risk and further anchoring prepaid usage locally.

Implications for planning and outreach

• Reach people where service is strongest: prioritize SMS, Facebook/Messenger, and WhatsApp; cacheable, low-bandwidth content performs better than high-bitrate streaming.
• Expect variability by micro-area: field crews and outreach should anticipate dead zones off main corridors; provide offline options and clear contact fallback paths.
• For network investment: additional mid-band 5G carriers on existing towers, selective infill along ranch roads, and more fiber backhaul would materially improve user experience.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are estimates synthesized from recent rural Texas adoption benchmarks, known county size/age profile, and typical performance seen on FCC mobile coverage maps and provider disclosures. For precise point-in-time rates, validate with the latest Census/ACS S2801 (device and internet use by county) and the FCC Broadband Data Collection maps for Coke County.

Note: Coke County–specific social metrics aren’t published. The figures below are planning ranges inferred from Pew Research on U.S./rural usage, Texas patterns, and small‑county demographics.

Overall usage

• Adult social media penetration: roughly 70–80% of adults
• Primary devices: mobile-first; video watched but short, compressed formats perform best due to rural bandwidth

Most‑used platforms (share of adults using the platform at least monthly; ranges reflect rural Texas adjustment)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 60–70% (Groups and Messenger central)
• Instagram: 25–35%
• TikTok: 20–30% overall; 45–60% among under‑30s
• Snapchat: 15–25% overall; 40–55% among teens/young adults
• WhatsApp: 10–20% (higher in Hispanic households/families across towns)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Pinterest: 20–30% (heavier female skew)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (mostly commuters/professionals)
• Nextdoor: <5% (low neighborhood density)

Age profile (share of the active social audience; approximate)

• Teens (13–17): 8–12% — Snapchat/TikTok heavy; light public posting
• 18–29: 15–20% — TikTok/Instagram/Snapchat; Facebook only for Groups/Marketplace
• 30–49: 30–40% — Facebook (daily), YouTube (how‑to, news), Instagram moderate, TikTok growing
• 50–64: 20–25% — Facebook and YouTube dominant; light Instagram/TikTok
• 65+: 12–18% — Facebook (family, church), YouTube; prefer simple, text/photo posts

Gender breakdown

• Overall active base: roughly balanced male/female
• Skews by platform:
  • Female+ on Facebook and Pinterest (+5–10 pts)
  • Male+ on YouTube, X, Reddit (+5–10 pts)

Behavioral trends

• Information hubs: Facebook Groups for county services, school updates, churches, local events, buy/sell (Marketplace)
• Content that travels: high school sports, community events, weather/wildfire/road alerts, hunting/fishing, ranching and oilfield topics, local business promos
• Posting windows: early morning (6–8 a.m.), evening (7–10 p.m.), weekend mornings
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is default; WhatsApp used for family/close-knit groups
• Creation vs consumption: majority are scrollers/sharers; short local video and photo carousels outperform long clips
• Trust anchors: sheriff/EMS/VFD pages, school district, churches, county offices; cross‑posting to Groups boosts reach
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the go‑to for vehicles, equipment, furniture; Instagram used by boutiques/food trucks for drops and stories

How to local‑validate quickly

• Check Meta Ads Manager audience estimates for “people living in this location” targeting Coke County or the towns (e.g., Robert Lee, Bronte)
• Tally membership/engagement in top local Facebook Groups and key public pages (school district, sheriff’s office)
• Spot‑survey at libraries, schools, and events to refine age/platform splits

Use these ranges as a baseline; adjust with the quick validation steps for a Coke County–specific plan.