Crane County

Here are concise, high-level demographics for Crane County, Texas. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census for total population; ACS 5-year estimates for characteristics, most recent available).

• Population (2020 Census): 4,675
• Age:
  • Median age: ~30
  • Under 18: ~31%
  • 65 and over: ~8–9%
• Gender:
  • Male: ~55%
  • Female: ~45%
• Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive, ACS):
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~75–80%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~18–22%
  • Black or African American: ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
  • Asian: <1%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Households (ACS):
  • Total households: ~1,400–1,500
  • Average household size: ~3.2
  • Family households: ~75% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~55–60% of families
  • Homeownership rate: ~70%

• Population baseline: 4,700 (2020 Census). Very low density (6 people/sq mi), with most residents in the City of Crane.
• Estimated email users: Adults ~3,200–3,400. Applying typical rural U.S. adoption (85–95% of adults use email), estimated 2,700–3,200 email users; daily users ~2,200–2,700.
• Age distribution (usage):
  • Teens: high adoption via school accounts.
  • 18–44: near-universal (90%+).
  • 45–64: very high (85–95%).
  • 65+: lower but substantial (≈60–75%), often via webmail on phones/tablets.
• Gender split: Email usage is near parity male/female; any local skew is small and largely reflects overall population mix.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband adoption trails Texas statewide averages; many households rely on mobile-only internet.
  • Smartphone dependence is common for email, with fixed wireless and satellite used outside town limits.
  • Speeds and reliability are best in Crane; performance drops across ranchland and oilfield areas due to distance from infrastructure.
• Connectivity facts: Sparse settlement and long loop lengths limit fiber/cable reach; cellular coverage is the primary access layer for many residents. Public access points (school, library, city facilities) help bridge gaps, supporting email use among students and seniors.

Here’s a concise, county-specific snapshot based on 2020 Census counts, ACS 5‑year trends, FCC mobile maps, and national/state tech-adoption research through 2024. Figures are modeled estimates; small-county swings and oilfield cycles can shift them year to year.

Headline takeaways versus Texas overall

• Mobile-only reliance is notably higher than the state average, while home fixed broadband take‑up is lower.
• Prepaid plans and Android devices are more common than in Texas as a whole.
• Employer-issued phones (oilfield, public safety) make up a larger slice of active lines.
• 5G availability is mostly low-band; mid-band 5G capacity is spottier than the Texas metro norm.
• Network load is “peaky,” with congestion tied to oilfield shifts and highway traffic, unlike steadier urban patterns.

User estimates

• Population base: about 4.7–4.9k residents countywide.
• Adults (18+): roughly 3.3–3.6k.
• Adult smartphone owners: about 2.9–3.2k (roughly 88–92% penetration, in line with or slightly below Texas but above many rural peers due to a relatively young, working population).
• Teens (13–17) with phones: about 270–360.
• Total individual mobile phone users (all ages): roughly 3.3–3.6k.
• Active lines/SIMs exceed users due to employer-issued devices and a minority using separate work/personal lines; practical line count is typically 5–15% above unique users.

Demographic patterns influencing usage

• Ethnicity: A majority Hispanic/Latino population drives high smartphone adoption but lower home-fixed broadband take‑up, so mobile is the primary internet on-ramp for many households. Mobile-only households are likely 22–28% of homes here versus a lower statewide share.
• Age and workforce: A sizable working-age cohort tied to the Permian Basin means:
  • Above-average share of employer-paid phones and push-to-talk/rugged devices.
  • Daytime population spikes and corridor-heavy movement (US‑385) that shape where capacity matters.
• Income/education mix: Prepaid plans and MVNOs are more common than statewide; family plans remain prevalent but with tighter data budgeting than in metros.
• Device mix: Android share is higher than the Texas urban average; iOS remains strong but not as dominant as in big metros.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile all serve the county; MVNOs ride these networks. Public-safety FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) improves resilience around Crane and key corridors.
• 4G LTE: Broad outdoor coverage on main roads and in the city of Crane; indoor coverage can be inconsistent in metal buildings and at the edges of ranchland/lease roads—signal boosters are common.
• 5G:
  • Low-band 5G is present around the city and along primary corridors.
  • Mid-band 5G (e.g., 2.5 GHz/C‑band) is limited or localized versus Texas metros, so capacity gains are modest and vary by carrier.
• Capacity and performance: Speeds are serviceable for everyday use but trail metro Texas; performance dips occur during oilfield shift changes and events, with better throughput off‑peak.
• Towers and density: A small set of macro sites clustered near Crane and along US‑385 covers most users; large ranch tracts and southern/western reaches have wider cell spacing and more dead zones than is typical statewide.
• Backhaul: Fiber follows key corridors; elsewhere, microwave is common. Private/enterprise CBRS and site LTE exist on some leases (not consumer-accessible) and can add localized interference/complexity.
• Home internet alternatives: Fixed wireless access (5G/LTE home internet) is available in and around Crane but is patchier in outlying areas; cable/fiber options are far less prevalent than in Texas cities, reinforcing mobile-only behavior.

How Crane County differs from Texas at large

• Access mode: More residents rely on a smartphone as their primary or only internet connection; fixed broadband adoption lags the state.
• Plan economics: Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and data-conscious usage; Texas metros skew more to postpaid premium plans.
• Work-issued lines: Oilfield/public-safety demand raises the share of employer-provided devices beyond the state norm.
• Network build: Coverage is broad but mid-band 5G depth and small-cell density are far below metro Texas, so real-world 5G capacity gains are smaller.
• Traffic profile: Strong corridor-and-shift-driven peaks vs. steadier urban demand curves.

Below is a concise, directional snapshot for Crane County, TX. Figures are modeled from recent U.S./Texas rural and Hispanic-majority social media patterns (e.g., Pew Research 2023–2024) adjusted to a small, oil-and-gas community profile. Treat them as estimates, not official counts.

Headline user stats

• Overall penetration (adults 18+): ~78–82% use at least one social platform monthly
• Teens (13–17): ~90%+
• Adult user count (approx.): 2.7k–3.1k users
• Mobile-first: majority access via smartphones; home broadband gaps increase reliance on short-form video and messaging apps

Most-used platforms (adults, monthly; modeled)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 65–75% (heavy Groups/Marketplace usage)
• Instagram: 40–50%
• TikTok: 35–45% (strong under 35)
• WhatsApp: 30–40% (elevated by bilingual/Hispanic households)
• Snapchat: 25–35% (teens/20s)
• Facebook Messenger: 55–65%
• X/Twitter: 12–18%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited footprint in small communities)

Age-group adoption (share using any social; common platforms)

• 13–17: ~90%+; Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; Instagram high, Facebook lower
• 18–29: ~90–95%; YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook ~50–60%
• 30–49: ~85–90%; Facebook, YouTube; Instagram/TikTok moderate; WhatsApp notable
• 50–64: ~70–80%; Facebook, YouTube lead; Instagram/WhatsApp moderate; TikTok emerging
• 65+: ~50–60%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; others low

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Overall user mix roughly tracks county population. Platform skews:
  • Women: over-index on Facebook and Instagram; active in local Groups and Marketplace
  • Men: over-index on YouTube, X/Twitter, Reddit; strong interest in how-to/repair, sports, news

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural West Texas counties

• Community info hub: Facebook Groups for city/county updates, schools/athletics, church events, road closures, weather alerts
• Commerce: Heavy use of Facebook Marketplace; local SMBs boost posts rather than run complex ad campaigns
• Messaging: WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for family coordination; frequent bilingual (English/Spanish) threads
• Video habits: YouTube for how-to, equipment/auto/oilfield repair and safety; TikTok/Reels/Shorts for entertainment; many users save streaming for Wi‑Fi
• Content themes: High school sports, hunting/fishing, local events/fundraisers, local businesses and services
• Usage peaks: Early mornings before shifts, lunch hour, evenings, and weekends; night activity from shift workers
• Trust patterns: Higher engagement with known local pages/people; spikes around storms, outages, road conditions, and school news

Notes and how to refine

• These are modeled estimates (Pew national/rural + Texas adjustments). For precise counts, combine platform ad-reach tools (Meta, TikTok, Snap) limited to Crane County ZIPs with a short local survey.