Collingsworth County

Do you prefer the latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023) or 2020 Census counts as the source? If no preference, I’ll use ACS 2019–2023 for population, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household details.

Collingsworth County, TX has about 2,650 residents across ~919 sq mi (≈3 people per sq mi). Using national email adoption benchmarks and rural access patterns, estimated email users total 1,800–2,100.

Approximate users by age

• 13–17: 90–110
• 18–34: 480–520
• 35–54: 620–680
• 55–64: 260–300
• 65+: 420–480

Gender split

• Roughly even; email use rates for men and women are similar, mirroring the county’s near 50/50 population mix.

Digital access and trends

• Household broadband subscription is roughly two‑thirds to three‑quarters, below the Texas average (ACS trend for rural counties). Many residents access email via smartphones; fixed wireless and satellite help cover areas lacking cable/fiber.
• Low population density and long loop lengths raise deployment costs, so speeds and reliability vary outside town centers.
• Connectivity has been improving with ongoing state/federal rural broadband investments, but affordability and older‑adult adoption remain constraints.

Notes: Counts are modeled from 2020 Census population, typical rural age structure, Pew email adoption by age, and ACS broadband subscription patterns; local conditions may vary.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Collingsworth County, Texas (focus on what differs from statewide)

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

• Population base: ≈2,500–2,700 residents; ≈2,000–2,200 adults.
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): 1,950–2,100 adults (roughly 88–95% of adults; slightly lower than Texas’ ~95–97%).
• Smartphone users: 1,600–1,900 adults (roughly 75–85% of adults; below Texas’ ~90%+).
• Mobile-only home internet households: estimated 15–25% of households rely primarily on cellular for home internet (above Texas average, which is closer to low teens). How these were derived: county population and age mix from recent Census estimates; adoption rates adjusted downward from state and Pew/ACS benchmarks to reflect older, rural profile.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age structure: Older than Texas overall (roughly a quarter of residents are 65+ vs low teens statewide), which:
  • Lowers smartphone adoption and app intensity.
  • Increases basic/feature phone retention and voice/SMS reliance.
  • Slows 5G device uptake and replacement cycles (3–5 years vs 2–3 in urban Texas).
• Income/affordability: Median household income well below Texas average, leading to:
  • Higher prepaid plan usage and tighter data caps.
  • Greater use of budget Android devices; slower upgrade cadence.
  • More hotspotting and shared family data plans.
• Race/ethnicity/language: Majority non-Hispanic White with a sizable Hispanic population.
  • Bilingual households often lean on OTT messaging (e.g., WhatsApp) to offset limited voice coverage and to manage costs.
• Digital skills and support: Fewer local retail carrier touchpoints than in metro Texas; more reliance on community anchors (libraries, schools) and word-of-mouth for device setup and troubleshooting.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage shape:
  • Solid 4G LTE along US-83 and in/around Wellington; patchier service on ranchland and along county borders.
  • 5G present mainly as low-band; mid-band 5G capacity is limited and uneven; mmWave is effectively absent.
• Performance:
  • In-town downlink often 10–80 Mbps; rural fringe can drop to single digits or fall back to 3G/EVS-like experiences in pockets.
  • Upload speeds and latency vary with microwave backhaul; evening congestion is common.
• Backhaul/fiber:
  • Limited middle-mile fiber outside the main corridors; several cell sites depend on microwave, which constrains capacity compared to metro Texas.
• Carrier landscape:
  • AT&T and Verizon generally provide the most reliable rural footprint; T-Mobile’s low-band 5G covers population centers but thins outside town.
  • FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is prioritized along highways and public-safety sites; responders still report dead zones off-pavement.
• Border effects:
  • Proximity to Oklahoma can trigger roaming or weak-signal handoffs near the Red River, unlike most of Texas.
• In-building coverage:
  • Metal-roof structures attenuate signal; Wi‑Fi calling and femtocells/boosters are more frequently used than in urban Texas.

Trends that differ from state-level

• Lower smartphone penetration and slower 5G device adoption due to older age profile and cost sensitivity.
• Higher reliance on prepaid plans, data caps, and older devices; more careful data budgeting than average Texas users.
• Greater share of mobile-only home internet households, making phones/hotspots a primary broadband lifeline.
• More voice/SMS and OTT messaging reliance; comparatively less mobile video streaming and cloud gaming, especially outside town limits.
• Coverage and capacity variability is a daily factor in behavior (Wi‑Fi calling, offline media, asynchronous usage), whereas most Texans experience consistently strong 5G in metros.
• Public safety and agricultural operations depend on multi-network strategies (external antennas, boosters, LMR fallback) far more than in urban/suburban Texas.

Notes and confidence

• Figures are estimates synthesized from county population and age structure with national/state adoption benchmarks and known rural infrastructure patterns.

Below is a concise, directional snapshot. County-level, survey-grade social media data aren’t published; figures are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. results, Texas rural-county patterns, and platform ad-reach norms for small rural markets. Treat as estimates.

Size and penetration

• Population: ~2,600–2,700 residents; social media users estimated at 1,600–1,900 (roughly 60–72% of residents; overlapping platform use is common).
• Devices/connectivity: Predominantly mobile. Many users rely on cellular data; short videos and photo-led posts outperform long streams.

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users; overlaps expected)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75% (Marketplace and local groups drive usage)
• Instagram: 28–35%
• TikTok: 25–33% (fast growth among teens/young adults)
• Snapchat: 18–25% (teen/young adult heavy)
• Pinterest: 18–24% (skews female)
• X/Twitter: 8–12%
• Reddit: 6–9%
• Nextdoor: 1–3% (limited footprint in very small counties)

Age mix of local social media users (approx.)

• 13–17: 9%
• 18–24: 9%
• 25–34: 16%
• 35–44: 17%
• 45–54: 19%
• 55–64: 16%
• 65+: 14%

Gender breakdown (approx.)

• Female: 52–55%
• Male: 45–48%
• Nonbinary/other: <1% (small-n visibility)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first Facebook: Heavy reliance on local groups/pages for school athletics, church/events, county updates, severe weather, buy/sell/trade, and obituaries. Marketplace is a top traffic driver.
• Lurkers > posters: Many adults consume more than they create; posts from known locals and institutions get outsized engagement.
• Content that travels: Simple photo posts, flyers, short vertical video (<=60s), yard-sale and event posts, athlete spotlights, “lost/found,” and weather alerts. Captions/subtitles matter due to sound-off viewing.
• Daily rhythms: Peaks before work/school (6:30–8:00 a.m.), lunch (11:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m.), and evenings (7:00–10:00 p.m.). Engagement spikes around Friday-night sports, severe weather, fairs, and holidays.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is default for adults; Snapchat DMs among teens; group texts remain common.
• Advertising norms: Most local businesses boost Facebook posts; effective CTAs are click-to-call and driving directions. Hyperlocal radius targeting (15–30 miles) often includes adjacent counties. Giveaways and community tie-ins outperform pure discount ads.
• Tone and trust: Friendly, familiar, and useful beats polished/corporate. Featuring recognizable people/places increases shares. Avoid polarizing topics unless essential public service info.

Notes on uncertainty

• Percentages are best-fit estimates for a rural Texas county of this size; actual figures can vary with broadband coverage, school enrollment cycles, and migration patterns.