Colorado County

Do you want figures from the 2020 Census or the latest American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates? I can provide the most recent ACS (with margins of error) or strict 2020 Census counts depending on your use case.

Colorado County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Estimated email users: ~13,000–15,000 residents. Basis: ≈21K population, ~80–88% adult internet adoption in rural Texas, and near‑universal email use among internet users.
• Age mix of email users: 18–29: ~15–20%; 30–49: ~30–35%; 50–64: ~25–30%; 65+: ~18–22% (older share slightly higher than urban Texas).
• Gender split among users: roughly even (≈49–51% male / 49–51% female).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription roughly 75–85% (rural TX range), with gaps in outlying farm/ranch areas.
  • Growing fiber and 5G coverage along main corridors; fixed‑wireless commonly used where cable/fiber are absent.
  • 10–15% of residents are likely smartphone‑only internet users, affecting email use on mobile.
  • Older and lower‑income households show lower subscription and less frequent email use than middle‑aged cohorts.
• Local density/connectivity context: Low population density (~20–25 people per sq. mile) with towns like Columbus, Eagle Lake, and Weimar clustered along I‑10/US‑90; connectivity is strongest in and around these towns and along highways, with sparser options on farm‑to‑market roads.

Notes: Figures are modeled from recent Pew/ACS/FCC rural-Texas patterns scaled to Colorado County’s size. Actuals may vary slightly.

Here’s a practical snapshot of mobile phone usage in Colorado County, Texas, with estimates, who’s using what, and the local infrastructure context—highlighting how it differs from Texas overall.

Headline estimates (2025)

• Population baseline: ~21–22k residents; ~8–9k households.
• Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ~17–19k people.
• Smartphone users: ~15–16k people.
• Mobile-only internet households (no fixed home broadband; rely on cellular/FWA): roughly 1.6–2.1k households (about 20–25% of households), higher than the Texas average.

How we derived the estimates

• Adults are roughly three-quarters of the population; rural adult cell-phone ownership is typically ~95–97%, with smartphone adoption ~80–85%.
• Teens 13–17 have very high smartphone use (≈90%+). Children under 13 contribute a smaller number of lines.
• Household counts derived from population/typical household size; mobile-only share reflects rural Texas patterns and the ongoing post-ACP lapse affordability crunch.

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age
  • 65+: Larger share than the state average, and smartphone adoption is materially lower than younger cohorts. Expect more basic/feature phones and smaller data plans in this group than statewide.
  • 18–44: Near-universal smartphone ownership; strong reliance on mobile data for work commutes along I‑10 and for hotspotting where fixed broadband is weak.
  • Teens: Very high smartphone penetration; heavy app/social usage, but coverage quality varies outside the I‑10/town cores.
• Income and plan type
  • Median household income trails the Texas average. That correlates with above-average prepaid/MVNO usage, more price-sensitive plan choices, and slower device upgrade cycles than the big-city state norm.
  • Mobile-only internet reliance is higher than statewide, especially among lower-income and Hispanic households, due to patchy fixed broadband and cost considerations.
• Race/ethnicity
  • With a sizable Hispanic population relative to the county’s size, expect above-average reliance on smartphones as the primary internet connection versus the Texas average, mirroring statewide patterns for Hispanic households but amplified by local broadband gaps.

Digital infrastructure and coverage patterns

• Where coverage is strongest
  • I‑10 corridor and town centers (Columbus, Weimar, Eagle Lake): denser macro sites, better capacity, and the most consistent 5G availability.
• Outside the corridors
  • Coverage reverts to low-band LTE/5G for reach; mid-band 5G is spotty. Tower spacing is wider, and vegetation/terrain can create dead or weak zones on farm-to-market roads and river-adjacent areas.
• Capacity and backhaul
  • Rural sites often have more constrained backhaul and spectrum than metro Texas; peak-time slowdowns are more noticeable during events or school hours.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA)
  • Rising adoption of carrier FWA for home internet where cable/fiber are absent; performance varies by distance to towers and line-of-sight.
• Public/anchor connectivity
  • Libraries and schools provide important Wi‑Fi offload in town. Emergency services benefit from corridor coverage, but redundancy off-corridor is thinner than in metro counties.

How Colorado County differs from Texas overall

• Adoption mix
  • Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration due to an older age profile; noticeably higher share of basic/feature phones among seniors than the state average.
• Plan economics
  • Higher prepaid/MVNO share and slower device refresh cycles than urban Texas; stronger sensitivity to price changes after the lapse of the ACP subsidy.
• Internet reliance
  • More mobile-only households than the state average, reflecting patchier fixed broadband outside town centers and growing FWA use.
• Network experience
  • Less mid-band 5G coverage and capacity outside the I‑10/town corridors; more day-to-day dependence on low-band LTE/5G for reach and on Wi‑Fi offload in public spaces.
• Resilience and redundancy
  • Fewer overlapping carrier options off-corridor; residents are more likely to choose carriers based on specific local tower performance rather than brand or statewide reputation.

Notes on data and method

• Population and household baselines reflect recent census/ACS ranges for small rural Texas counties.
• Adoption rates draw from national and Texas rural trends (Pew Research and carrier/FCC mapping patterns), adjusted for the county’s older age profile and rural broadband availability.
• Figures are presented as ranges to reflect variability across carriers, sub-county geographies, and fast-changing 5G/FWA rollouts. For project-critical planning, validate with current FCC Broadband Map layers, carrier coverage tools, and on-the-ground drive testing.

Colorado County, TX social media snapshot (estimates)

How many users

• Population: ~21–22k; adults (18+): ~16–17k
• Adults using major platforms (share of adult residents; localized from Pew U.S. data with rural adjustments)
  • YouTube: 80–85%
  • Facebook: 70–75%
  • Instagram: 35–45%
  • Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
  • TikTok: 25–33% (skews younger)
  • Snapchat: 20–28% (heavily under 30)
  • WhatsApp: 18–25% (higher with bilingual/Hispanic households)
  • X/Twitter: 15–22% (lower in rural areas)
  • LinkedIn: 15–22% (professional niche)
  • Nextdoor: 10–15% (varies by neighborhood; towns like Columbus/Eagle Lake/Weimar)

Age groups (share of the local social media audience; rural counties skew older)

• 18–29: ~18–22% — Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; light on Facebook posting
• 30–49: ~30–35% — Facebook, Instagram, YouTube; WhatsApp for family coordination
• 50–64: ~25–30% — Facebook, YouTube; Pinterest for projects/recipes
• 65+: ~18–22% — Facebook, YouTube; limited on other platforms

Gender breakdown (patterns, not hard counts)

• Overall user base roughly even by gender
• Women: over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; solid on Instagram
• Men: over-index on YouTube, X/Twitter, Reddit; Facebook still widely used

Most-used platforms (ranked, adults)

1. YouTube (80–85%)
2. Facebook (70–75%)
3. Instagram (35–45%)
4. Pinterest (30–35%)
5. TikTok (25–33%)
6. Snapchat (20–28%)
7. WhatsApp (18–25%)
8. X/Twitter (15–22%)
9. LinkedIn (15–22%)
10. Nextdoor (10–15%)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: local news, school sports, church/civic updates, buy/sell/trade groups; Messenger is the default DM
• Local-first shopping: heavy use of Facebook Marketplace; click-to-message and call buttons outperform long forms
• Video habits: YouTube for how‑to/repairs, equipment, hunting/fishing, DIY; TikTok/Reels for quick entertainment and discovery
• Event-driven spikes: fairs, school calendars, athletics, seasonal ag/hunting drive engagement
• Posting times: evenings (6–9 pm) and weekends; school-related posts see weekday afternoon bumps
• Language/culture: bilingual (English/Spanish) content performs well; WhatsApp used within extended families
• Privacy: some reluctance to public commenting; DMs and closed groups matter; Nextdoor used for safety/lost‑and‑found in certain neighborhoods
• Business use: local restaurants, trades, real estate, and ag services do well with short video, authentic faces, and community tie-ins

Notes and method

• County-level platform stats aren’t directly published. Figures are estimates by applying 2024 Pew Research Center U.S. social platform usage rates, with rural adjustments, to Colorado County’s adult population (approx. 16–17k). Use ranges for planning rather than exact counts.