Comanche County

To give you precise figures, which data vintage do you prefer?

• 2020 Census (exact counts; limited detail for some topics), or
• Latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023), which provide the most complete county-level demographics (population, age, sex, race/ethnicity, households, etc.).

If you confirm the preferred source, I’ll return a concise, bullet-point snapshot with the requested metrics.

Comanche County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Scale: 13.6k residents; low rural density (14–15 people/sq. mi.).
• Estimated email users: ≈9–10k residents (age 13+) use email at least occasionally, based on national adoption rates adjusted for an older, rural profile.

By age (approximate users)

• 18–34: ~2.3k
• 35–64: ~4.9k
• 65+: ~2.0k
• Teens 13–17: ~0.8k
• Under 13: minimal independent use

Gender split

• Near parity; roughly 51% female, 49% male among users (usage rates are similar by gender).

Digital access and trends

• Home internet: roughly 70–80% of households subscribe; 15–25% rely primarily on smartphones; 10–15% have no home internet.
• Connectivity pattern: Higher-speed cable/fiber concentrated in/near towns (e.g., Comanche, De Leon); many outlying addresses depend on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
• Usage behavior: Email is checked frequently on smartphones; older adults more likely to use webmail on PCs or public-access points (libraries/schools).
• Trendline: Gradual improvements from fixed wireless and LTE/5G, but overall broadband availability and speeds trail Texas urban counties due to sparse settlement.

Notes: Figures are derived from county population and typical U.S. email/internet adoption rates for rural/older areas; treat as directional estimates.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Comanche County, Texas

At-a-glance

• Population context: About 14,000 residents, with an older age profile, lower median income, and lower college-attainment than Texas overall, and a sizable Hispanic community (~30%).
• Terrain/settlement: Predominantly rural ranching/farming with small towns (Comanche, De Leon); coverage is strongest in and along highway corridors and town centers.

User estimates (modeled)

• Mobile phone users (any mobile, all ages): roughly 10,500–12,000 residents
  • Basis: rural U.S. mobile adoption of ~90–94% among adults, plus high teen adoption; lower for young children.
• Smartphone users: roughly 9,000–10,000
  • Basis: rural smartphone adoption typically ~78–82% of adults, ~90% of teens.
• Basic/feature phone users: about 800–1,200
  • Skews toward 65+ and very low-income users.
• Wireless-only households: materially lower than the Texas average
  • Texas as a whole is high on wireless-only; older age mix and landline retention in Comanche keep the county several points lower than the state.

Demographic drivers and usage patterns

• Age: Seniors are a larger share (around one-quarter 65+), which correlates with:
  • More basic phone ownership, more voice/SMS reliance, and continued landline use.
  • Slower uptake of mobile payments and app-based services.
• Income/education: Lower median income and college attainment than Texas overall:
  • Higher share of prepaid plans and value carriers/MVNOs.
  • More Android than iOS relative to metros; stronger price sensitivity and data-saving behaviors (Wi‑Fi offload, smaller data plans).
• Ethnicity/language: A sizable Hispanic community:
  • Higher use of cross-platform messaging (e.g., WhatsApp) and Spanish-language content than surrounding non-Hispanic rural areas.
• Work patterns: Agriculture and trades dominate:
  • Heavy use of weather, commodity, mapping, and equipment/IoT apps; more push-to-talk/LMR interoperability than in urban Texas.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Cellular networks:
  • 4G LTE is the baseline; 5G is present primarily as wide-area low-band near towns and along US/State highways; performance drops in outlying ranchland and draws.
  • AT&T and Verizon tend to provide the most consistent rural coverage; T‑Mobile’s extended-range 5G has improved reach but still has gaps off-corridor.
  • mmWave/ultra‑wideband 5G is effectively absent.
  • Residents commonly rely on Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters in fringe areas; some households maintain dual‑SIM or family members on different carriers to ensure reach.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Local telco/co-op fiber exists in town centers and some platted areas; DSL and legacy copper persist in pockets.
  • Cable coverage is limited; fixed wireless access (FWA) from national carriers is available near towns but falls off quickly with distance/terrain.
  • Satellite (e.g., LEO) adoption is notably higher than in metro Texas, and mobile users often offload to home Wi‑Fi where available.
• Emergency/service continuity:
  • Sparse tower density means single-site outages can create large dead zones; wildfire and storm seasons can stress backup power and backhaul.

How Comanche County differs from Texas overall

• Adoption mix: Slightly lower smartphone and wireless-only adoption; higher basic phone retention due to older demographics.
• Plan mix: Greater reliance on prepaid/MVNO and smaller data buckets; higher Android share.
• Coverage reality: More pronounced “good-in-town, weak-on-the-ranch” pattern; 5G mainly low-band with modest real-world speed gains versus metros.
• Home internet substitution: Higher relative use of satellite and FWA; heavier reliance on Wi‑Fi calling and boosters than the state average.
• App ecosystem: Less demand for ride-hailing/food-delivery; more ag/weather/mapping and cross-border messaging usage than urban Texas.

Notes on method

• Estimates are derived from recent national/rural adoption benchmarks (e.g., Pew/NHIS), applied to Comanche County’s population size and age structure from recent ACS/Census figures, plus typical rural Texas network footprints. Figures are presented as ranges to reflect uncertainty and within-county variation.

Note: County-level social media metrics aren’t directly published. The figures below are estimates derived from Pew Research (US/rural trends), Texas rural patterns, and the county’s older age mix. Use as directional, not absolute.

Snapshot

• Population: ~14,000; older-skewing, significant Hispanic community; mobile-first.
• Social media penetration: 70–78% of adults (roughly 7,500–8,500 residents) use at least one platform.
• Access: Most activity is on smartphones; broadband gaps exist outside town centers.

Most-used platforms (share of adults, estimated)

• Facebook: 65–70% (strongest single platform locally; Marketplace and Groups are core)
• YouTube: 70–75% (how-to, news, faith, farming/outdoors)
• Instagram: 25–35% (skews under 45)
• TikTok: 25–30% (fast growth among under 35; some 50+ adoption)
• Pinterest: 22–28% (DIY, recipes; heavily female)
• Snapchat: 15–20% (teens/20s)
• X/Twitter: 8–12% (niche: sports, news)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (professionals, small-business owners)
• Reddit/Nextdoor: 3–8% (niche/low in rural areas)

Age breakdown (who’s active and where)

• 13–17: Very high usage; TikTok/Snapchat/YouTube dominant; light Facebook (events/teams).
• 18–29: 90%+ on at least one; TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat daily; YouTube universal; Facebook for events/jobs.
• 30–49: Heavy Facebook (Groups, Marketplace, school/sports), YouTube; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising.
• 50–64: Facebook first, YouTube second; Pinterest notable; some TikTok/Instagram adoption.
• 65+: Majority on Facebook; YouTube for news/how-to; limited presence elsewhere.

Gender breakdown (estimated)

• Overall active users: ~53% female, ~47% male.
• By platform:
  • Facebook: 55–60% female
  • Instagram: ~55% female
  • TikTok: 55–60% female
  • YouTube: ~55% male
  • Pinterest: 70–80% female
  • Snapchat: ~55% female
  • X/Twitter: 60–65% male

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Facebook Groups (local news, churches, school athletics, buy/sell, farm/ranch) drive the highest engagement.
• Marketplace matters: High usage for vehicles, equipment, household goods; DMs and Messenger preferred for inquiries.
• Video wins: Short-form reels/TikToks for events, promotions, and highlights; YouTube for how-to, repairs, outdoors, faith content.
• Local faces convert: Posts featuring known community members, high school sports, FFA/4-H, rodeos, festivals, and church events outperform.
• Trust cues: Clear offers, phone numbers, and reviews/testimonials beat slick creative. Sponsorships and cause tie-ins work well.
• Language: Bilingual (English/Spanish) posts improve reach and response in many neighborhoods.
• Timing: Peaks around 7–9 am, 11:30 am–1 pm, and 7–9 pm; weekends strong for events/Marketplace.
• Geo radius: Most ad responses come from within 15–25 miles; neighboring towns can be included for reach.