Concho County

To give you precise figures, which source/year would you like?

• 2020 Decennial Census (official headcount), or
• 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates (most current, model-based)

Also, should I include people in group quarters (e.g., prison) in the totals? If you don’t specify, I’ll use ACS 2019–2023 5-year and include group quarters.

Concho County snapshot

• Population ≈3,300 across ~994 sq mi (≈3.3 people/mi²); ~1,200 households.

Estimated email users

• 2,100–2,400 residents.
• Method: ~77–80% adults; adult email adoption in rural areas ~75–85%; teens (13–17) ~60–75%.

Age distribution of email users (approx.)

• 13–24: 12–15%
• 25–44: 30–35%
• 45–64: 30–35%
• 65+: 18–25% Older adults are less likely to use email daily, lowering their share.

Gender split (among users)

• ~49% male, 51% female. Note: incarceration skews the county’s overall sex ratio, but institutionalized populations have limited personal email access, so active email users skew closer to parity.

Digital access and trends

• Broadband subscriptions: roughly 60–70% of households; a sizable “smartphone‑only” segment.
• Fixed fiber/cable mainly in/near Eden and Paint Rock; many outlying areas depend on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
• Mobile data is primary for many; best coverage along US‑83/US‑87; 5G is spotty.
• Public Wi‑Fi (library, schools, municipal buildings) plays an outsized role.
• Very low density and long distances raise last‑mile costs, so state/federal funds prioritize fills for unserved pockets.

These figures are estimates synthesized from typical rural Texas patterns and recent census/ACS/FCC trends.

Below is a practical, data-informed snapshot of mobile phone usage in Concho County, Texas. Figures are estimates derived from county population size, rural adoption patterns, and recent statewide/national trends; they are intended for planning, not regulatory reporting.

County context (2024 est.)

• Population: ~3,300–3,500
• Adults (18+): ~2,600–2,800
• Rural, low-density county centered on Eden and Paint Rock with coverage concentrated along US‑83/US‑87 corridors

User estimates

• Adults with any mobile phone: ~2,400–2,650 (about 90–95% of adults; a bit below Texas’s ~96–98%)
• Smartphone users: ~2,050–2,350 (about 80–85% of adults; vs. Texas ~88–92%)
• Mobile-only home internet reliance: roughly 180–300 households (about 15–25% of households), notably above Texas’s share because fixed broadband is limited outside towns
• Carrier mix (qualitative): AT&T and Verizon lead due to broader rural LTE/low-band 5G footprints; T‑Mobile coverage has expanded on main roads but remains more variable off‑corridor. MVNO use is common, but performance depends heavily on the host network footprint and deprioritization.

Demographic usage patterns

• Age: Higher share of older adults than Texas overall. Smartphone adoption among 65+ trails the state average by several points; basic/feature phone retention is still visible. Expect stronger voice/SMS dependence and lighter high-bandwidth app use in this cohort.
• Hispanic residents: A sizable share of the county. Smartphone dependence for internet access is at or above the state average; messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp) and bilingual usage are more common. Family-plan consolidation and prepaid plans are prevalent.
• Income/rurality: Lower median income and sparse fixed broadband drive more prepaid and mobile‑only connectivity. Data caps and deprioritization can shape usage (e.g., conservative video streaming, off‑peak updates).

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern:
  • Solid LTE/low‑band 5G along US‑83/US‑87 and in/near Eden and Paint Rock.
  • Off‑corridor ranchland and river bottoms see weaker signal and dead zones, especially indoors.
• 5G specifics:
  • Low‑band 5G (600/700/850 MHz) from all major carriers covers most populated spots; it mainly improves reach and reliability rather than speed.
  • Mid‑band 5G (2.5 GHz n41 from T‑Mobile; C‑band 3.7–3.98 GHz for AT&T/Verizon) appears in limited, corridor‑focused pockets; not countywide. This keeps peak speeds and capacity below metro Texas norms.
• Typical speeds/latency (user‑observed ranges):
  • LTE/low‑band 5G: ~10–50 Mbps down, 2–10 Mbps up, 30–80 ms latency.
  • Mid‑band 5G where available: ~100–300+ Mbps down, 10–40 Mbps up, 20–40 ms latency.
  • Performance can degrade quickly indoors in metal buildings or at distance from highways.
• Fixed alternatives shaping mobile use:
  • Fiber and cable are sparse outside town centers; legacy DSL is common but constrained.
  • Fixed Wireless Access (4G/5G home internet) is offered selectively—more likely near towns and along highways—filling gaps but capacity‑managed.
• Public safety and resiliency:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence on key sites improves emergency coverage, but backhaul and power redundancy vary; multi‑carrier device support is advisable for business continuity.

How Concho County differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration and higher basic‑phone retention, especially among seniors.
• Higher share of mobile‑only internet households due to limited fiber/cable footprints.
• Slower, more variable 5G experience: low‑band is common, but mid‑band capacity is patchy and often limited to corridors; statewide, mid‑band is far more prevalent in metros.
• Carrier dynamics skew toward AT&T/Verizon for reliability; T‑Mobile growth is visible on highways but not uniformly off‑grid—contrast with metros where T‑Mobile’s mid‑band often leads.
• Usage skews practical and conservative (voice/SMS, light/standard streaming, episodic large downloads), influenced by signal variability, data caps, and deprioritization—less like the high‑throughput urban patterns seen across much of Texas.

Implications for planners and providers

• Target mid‑band 5G sectors and backhaul upgrades around Eden, Paint Rock, and along US‑83/US‑87 to lift capacity where most traffic concentrates.
• Expand indoor coverage solutions for schools, clinics, and metal‑roof commercial sites.
• Maintain multi‑carrier strategies (business and public safety) to mitigate single‑network gaps.
• Pair FWA expansion with clear capacity policies to support mobile‑only homes without degrading peak mobile performance.

Here’s a concise, locally tuned snapshot for Concho County, TX (pop. ~3,300). Figures are estimates inferred from rural Texas/US usage patterns, county demographics, and platform benchmarks; treat as directional with small-population caveats.

Headline user stats

• Estimated active social media users (age 13+): 1,800–2,200 (roughly 55–65% of total residents; ~70–80% of residents 13+)
• Access/usage skew: smartphone-first, spotty home broadband in outlying areas; heavy reliance on Facebook/YouTube

User mix (share of local social media users)

• Age groups:
  • 13–17: 8–10%
  • 18–29: 17–20%
  • 30–49: 30–35%
  • 50–64: 22–25%
  • 65+: 15–18%
• Gender:
  • Female: 53–57%
  • Male: 43–47%

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users using each at least monthly)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 70–78% (Messenger: 70–80%)
• Instagram: 32–40%
• TikTok: 28–35%
• Snapchat: 22–30% (concentrated under 30)
• WhatsApp: 22–32% (higher among Spanish/bilingual households)
• Pinterest: 28–36% (skews female 25–54)
• X/Twitter: 12–18%
• Reddit: 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 0–5% (limited neighborhood coverage)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first Facebook: local groups dominate (school sports, churches, county updates, road/weather alerts, buy-sell-trade/Marketplace). Highest engagement evenings/weekends; spikes around HS events and weather/fire news.
• Video as default: YouTube for DIY/ranching, equipment/auto repair, hunting/fishing, music; short-form TikTok/FB Reels rising among <40.
• Messaging over posting: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp group chats for family, church, and work crews; low public commenting among 50+ except on local news/issues.
• Commerce is conversational: Marketplace and Instagram/Facebook DMs drive micro-commerce (livestock, tools, crafts, services). Cash/meetup norms persist.
• Younger cohorts split attention: Teens/20s on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram Stories; cross-posting to Reels common. Limited X/Twitter use.
• Language mix: meaningful Spanish presence in Facebook/WhatsApp groups; bilingual content performs well.
• Connectivity-aware behavior: fewer long livestreams; short clips, photos, and text updates win. Downloaded YouTube for offline viewing is common.

Notes

• Figures are estimates adapted from Pew Research platform adoption, rural Texas patterns, and county demographics; exact county-level platform stats aren’t directly published.