Coleman County

Here are key demographics for Coleman County, Texas.

Population (most recent estimate)

• Total population: 7,865 (2023 estimate)

Age

• Median age: 47.9 years
• Under 18: 20.9%
• 65 and over: 26.0%

Sex

• Female: 49.1%
• Male: 50.9%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: 91.9%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 72.6%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 23.9%
• Black or African American alone: 0.7%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 1.0%
• Asian alone: 0.3%
• Two or more races: ~4.0%

Households and housing

• Number of households: 3,483
• Persons per household: 2.22
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: 76.8%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Vintage 2023 Population Estimates.

Email usage in Coleman County, TX (estimates)

• Context: Population 8.3k; very rural density (6–7 residents per sq. mile).
• Digital access: Roughly 70–80% of households subscribe to broadband and ~85–90% have a computer (ACS S2801, 2018–2022). Access clusters in and around the City of Coleman and Santa Anna; many outlying areas rely on cellular, satellite, or fixed wireless.
• Estimated email users: 5.5k–6.1k residents (about 65–73% of the population), combining local internet subscription levels with national email adoption among online adults (90%+; Pew).
• Age distribution of users (approx.): 18–29: 12–16%; 30–49: 30–35%; 50–64: 26–30%; 65+: 22–28%. Seniors are somewhat less likely to use email than younger adults, but still a majority do.
• Gender split: Near parity, ~49–51% each (email adoption is similar for men and women nationally).
• Trends: Gradual gains in broadband subscription and smartphone-only access; affordability and distance from fiber/cable plant remain key constraints in the most rural tracts. Public libraries, schools, and county facilities provide important Wi‑Fi access points.

Notes: Figures are derived from recent ACS county-level connectivity metrics blended with national email usage patterns; treat as directional estimates.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Coleman County, Texas (2025)

Context

• Rural county with a small, aging population (roughly 8,000–9,000 residents). Median age and share of seniors are higher, and median household income is lower than the Texas average. These factors typically dampen high-end device adoption and 5G uptake.

User estimates (directional, based on rural-Texas patterns)

• Adult population: ~6,800–7,200.
• Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ~6,200–6,600 adults (about 90–93% of adults).
• Smartphone users: ~5,100–5,700 adults (about 75–82% of adults), below the statewide rate.
• Households primarily relying on mobile data/hotspots for home internet: ~400–600 (roughly 10–15% of households), higher than the Texas average.
• Plan mix: Prepaid usage materially higher than the state average; postpaid family plans somewhat less common.
• Device mix: Android share higher than state average; iPhone share lower.
• 5G-capable devices: Lower penetration than Texas overall; many users hold onto 4G LTE handsets longer.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age 65+ (larger share than state): Smartphone adoption materially lower (many flip/feature phones remain in use); more voice/SMS-centric usage.
• Ages 18–34 (smaller share than state): Near-universal smartphone use; heavier app/social/video use where coverage allows.
• Ages 35–64: High smartphone use but somewhat below state; budget Android devices and prepaid plans are common.
• Hispanic residents (notably present but a smaller share than Texas overall): High smartphone reliance; above-average likelihood of mobile-only internet access due to limited wireline options.
• Income effects: Lower incomes and credit constraints mean more prepaid lines, refurbished/older phones, and longer device replacement cycles. Wi‑Fi offload at home/work and public locations is important.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Coverage: Strongest around the City of Coleman and other town centers; reliable service along main travel corridors; notable dead zones in sparsely populated ranchland and low-lying terrain.
• Technology mix: LTE is the workhorse. Low-band 5G appears in/near town centers; mid-band 5G is limited, so users frequently fall back to LTE outside towns.
• Carrier landscape: Residents lean toward networks with wider rural footprints (typically AT&T and Verizon). T‑Mobile’s presence is improving but remains spottier outside towns. MVNOs that ride these networks are used for cost savings.
• Home broadband alternatives: Fixed wireless from regional WISPs serves pockets around towns and along county roads; fiber is limited and incremental. Satellite (e.g., Starlink) adoption is noticeable on ranches and properties off the main grid. T‑Mobile/Verizon “home internet” products are available only in select zones with adequate signal.
• Public connectivity: Libraries, schools, and a handful of businesses provide Wi‑Fi that residents use to offload data and update devices.

How Coleman County differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone and 5G device penetration; higher persistence of basic/flip phones.
• More Android and prepaid lines; fewer premium postpaid family plans.
• Greater reliance on mobile-only or hotspot-based home internet due to patchy wireline/fiber availability.
• Coverage is more LTE-dominant, with fewer mid-band 5G areas and more dead zones between towns.
• Carrier choices skew toward those with stronger rural footprints; T‑Mobile share is lower than its statewide performance.
• Usage is more voice/SMS and Wi‑Fi-calling dependent; heavy mobile streaming is tempered by coverage and data constraints.
• Affordability pressures (especially after the wind-down of the federal ACP in 2024) have led to plan downgrades, prepaid switching, or shared devices more than in urban Texas.

Notes on method

• Figures are estimates synthesized from rural Texas adoption patterns, national rural–urban gaps in smartphone ownership, and typical coverage/build-out characteristics for low-density counties. They are intended as planning ranges rather than precise counts.

Coleman County, TX social media snapshot (2025, estimates)

Overall user base

• Population: ~8–9k residents
• Social media users: ~5.5k–6.5k (about 65–75% of residents; ~70–80% of adults)
• Device mix: Primarily mobile; a notable share is smartphone-only due to rural broadband gaps

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users, est.)

• Facebook: 75–85%
• YouTube: 70–80%
• Instagram: 25–35%
• TikTok: 15–25%
• Pinterest: 20–30% (strong with women 25–54)
• Snapchat: 10–20% (teens/20s)
• X (Twitter): 8–15%
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (professionals, job seekers)
• Reddit: 5–10%
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (limited by low-density neighborhoods)
• WhatsApp: 10–15% (messaging; higher in bilingual households) Note: Multi-platform use is common; percentages overlap.

Age mix among local social media users (est., sums ~100%)

• 13–17: ~11%
• 18–29: ~20%
• 30–49: ~32%
• 50–64: ~23%
• 65+: ~14% Adoption skews highest under 50; 65+ usage is growing but remains lower versus younger groups.

Gender breakdown (among local social media users, est.)

• Women: ~52–56% overall; over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest
• Men: ~44–48% overall; over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X
• TikTok roughly even by gender

Behavioral trends

• Community-first: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups/Pages for school sports, local government updates, church events, yard sales/Marketplace, lost-and-found, and buy-sell-trade.
• Peak activity: Early mornings (6–8 a.m.), lunch (12–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–9 p.m.); strong weekend/event-driven spikes.
• Content that performs: Short videos (Reels/Shorts) of local events, sports highlights, weather/road conditions, and “what’s happening this weekend” posts; authentic, people-centric photos outperform polished ads.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger dominates; group chats coordinate events and boosters. WhatsApp used in some family and bilingual networks.
• Connectivity-aware behavior: Mobile-first viewing; some avoid long livestreams or high-res video due to data limits; downloads and off-peak viewing are common.
• Commerce: Marketplace and local group posts drive discovery; discount/coupon posts, giveaways, and sponsor shout-outs get high engagement.
• Trust dynamics: Word-of-mouth in groups and recommendations from known locals carry more weight than brand advertising.

Notes on methodology

• County-level platform stats aren’t directly published. Figures above are estimates based on Pew Research’s 2024 U.S. platform usage, rural vs. urban adoption patterns, Texas/rural broadband constraints, and Coleman County’s older age profile. Use for planning and directional insight rather than exact counts.