Crockett County

Which data vintage would you like?

• Latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023), best for small counties and includes detailed breakdowns
• 2020 Decennial Census counts, point-in-time headcount with limited detail

I’ll summarize population size, age, sex, race/ethnicity (Hispanic origin), and household counts/average size based on your choice.

Crockett County, TX (pop ~3,100; ~1.1 people per sq mi) is highly rural, shaping digital habits.

Estimated email users: ~1,700–2,000 residents use email regularly. Method: rural internet use ~82–85% of adults; ~90–95% of internet users use email.

Approximate age mix of email users:

• 18–34: 28–32%
• 35–64: 45–50%
• 65+: 15–20%
• Under 18 (school accounts): 4–7%

Gender split among users: ~52% male, 48% female (reflecting a slight local male majority).

Access and usage trends:

• Wired broadband is concentrated in/near Ozona; outside town many rely on mobile data, fixed wireless, or satellite with variable speeds/latency.
• Smartphone‑only access is common; most email is checked on phones rather than PCs.
• Coverage tends to be strongest along the I‑10 corridor; service drops in sparsely settled ranchland.
• State and federal investments are gradually expanding fiber and 5G fixed wireless, but affordability and coverage gaps persist after the ACP wind‑down.
• Email remains a staple for schools, county/government services, ranching/oilfield coordination, and telehealth scheduling, with usage peaking around public facilities and work sites.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Crockett County, Texas

Scope and method

• Figures are planning estimates derived from 2020–2023 ACS/Census population, national/rural mobile adoption benchmarks, Texas carrier coverage patterns, and rural broadband trends. Ranges reflect uncertainty in a small, sparsely populated county.

Baseline

• Population: roughly 3,100–3,300 residents; ~1,150–1,250 households.
• Setting: Very rural, centered on Ozona along I‑10; long distances on SH‑163 and US‑190 with limited services.

User estimates

• Residents with any mobile phone: about 2,400–2,800 (roughly 75–85% of total population; near-universal among adults, lower among children).
• Smartphone users: about 2,050–2,350 (roughly 80–85% of adults; several points below Texas’ urban averages).
• Basic/feature phone users: 200–300, skewing older and ranch/oilfield workers who favor rugged/long-battery devices.
• Households that are “mobile-only” for voice (no landline): ~60–70% (lower than Texas overall, where wireless-only is closer to 70–80%).
• Households that rely on mobile data or hotspots as primary home internet: ~25–35% (well above Texas statewide, where this is closer to the mid-teens).

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age:
  • 65+: Larger share than Texas overall. More basic phones, larger-font devices, and slower upgrade cycles; higher use of voice/SMS vs app-centric communication.
  • Teens: Smaller absolute numbers but high smartphone penetration; heavy use of social/video apps; depend on school Wi‑Fi in town due to patchy home broadband.
• Ethnicity/language:
  • Hispanic/Latino share is substantially higher than the Texas average. Greater use of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Spanish-language content/support; family-plan clustering common.
• Workforce:
  • Ranching, highway services, and some oilfield-related work. Above-average use of rugged devices, vehicle boosters, and push-to-talk apps; coverage needs extend far beyond town centers.
• Income/affordability:
  • Lower median incomes than state average. Prepaid plans and MVNOs are used more frequently; device replacement cycles are longer. Sunset of federal affordability subsidies increases risk of data-plan downgrades or shared lines.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage footprint:
  • Strongest, most consistent service along I‑10 and in/around Ozona. Rapid degradation on SH‑163 and US‑190 and across ranchlands; “one‑bar/No Service” pockets persist.
• Technology mix:
  • 4G LTE is the workhorse. Low‑band 5G is present in/near Ozona and along I‑10; mid‑band/capacity 5G is limited or intermittent. mmWave is effectively absent.
• Carriers (practical experience, not endorsements):
  • AT&T and Verizon generally provide the most reliable highway/town coverage; T‑Mobile has improved along I‑10 but is patchier off‑corridor. MVNO performance mirrors their host networks, with deprioritization more noticeable during I‑10 traffic surges.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Near town: typical 20–150 Mbps on 5G/LTE; off‑corridor: single‑digit to low‑teens Mbps, with occasional drops to 0–1 Mbps in low-lying or distant ranch areas.
• Backhaul and resilience:
  • Fiber backhaul follows I‑10; many off‑corridor sites rely on microwave. Power backup exists at key sites but extended outages (wildfire, ice, high winds) have caused multi-hour service interruptions.
• Home connectivity alternatives:
  • Fixed wireless (LTE/5G home) and Starlink adoption are materially higher than state average due to limited wired options; WISPs serve some ranches and outlying areas.

How Crockett County differs from Texas overall

• Adoption:
  • Slightly lower smartphone penetration and a higher share of basic phones than the state average.
  • Higher reliance on mobile data/hotspots or satellite for primary home internet; wired broadband take-up is lower.
• Network experience:
  • Coverage is more corridor‑dependent, with large geographic gaps off highways; 5G is mostly low‑band with limited mid‑band capacity compared to many Texas metros.
• Plans and devices:
  • Greater use of prepaid/MVNO options; slower device upgrade cycles; more demand for rugged phones and signal boosters.
• Demographics and usage:
  • More Spanish‑dominant households and larger 65+ share shape app choices, support needs, and preference for voice/SMS versus data‑heavy services.

Implications for planning

• Extending mid‑band 5G and adding fiber backhaul beyond I‑10 would deliver outsized benefits.
• New or upgraded sites along SH‑163 and US‑190, plus support for certified boosters in ranch areas, would close the biggest experience gaps.
• Bilingual outreach and affordable prepaid/small-data plans remain important to sustain adoption.

Social media in Crockett County, TX (modeled snapshot, 2025)

Population and user base

• Residents: ≈3.1K
• Active social media users: ≈1.7K–2.1K (about 55–70% of total; 70–80% of ages 13+)
• Gender (of users): women 51–53%, men 47–49% (nonbinary/other small but present)

Age mix (share of local social media users)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–24: 10–12%
• 25–34: 18–22%
• 35–44: 18–22%
• 45–54: 15–18%
• 55–64: 12–15%
• 65+: 12–15%

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users; ranges reflect rural TX patterns and county demographics)

• YouTube: 80–90%
• Facebook: 75–85%
• Facebook Messenger: 60–70%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• WhatsApp: 25–35% (buoyed by the county’s large Hispanic population)
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (concentrated under 30)
• X/Twitter: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 10–15%
• Reddit/Nextdoor: each ≤10% (Nextdoor presence limited; Facebook Groups fill the “neighbors” role)

Behavioral trends

• Facebook Groups dominate hyperlocal life (Ozona school sports, buy/sell, church, road/weather alerts, wildfire updates).
• Messaging is mobile-first: Messenger for day-to-day; WhatsApp for family, bilingual chat, and cross-border ties.
• Video habits: YouTube for how‑to, ranch/outdoor content; TikTok/IG Reels for short entertainment and local highlights.
• Content that performs: local sports, hunting/fishing, ranch life, community events, bilingual posts, giveaways; photos outperform text.
• Timing: engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm CT) and Sundays; secondary spikes at lunch and after school.
• Discovery and trust: people follow known faces—school teams, county offices, churches, boosters, and small businesses. Closed/Private groups see higher participation among older users.
• Connectivity reality: many users are mobile-only; bandwidth can be spotty outside Ozona, so short videos and compressed images help.
• Advertising notes: best ROI on Facebook/Instagram with tight geo (15–30 miles around Ozona), interest cues (ranching, oilfield, HS athletics, outdoors), and bilingual creative.

Notes

• Figures are modeled from rural Texas usage patterns, Pew U.S. platform adoption, and local demographics; precise county-level platform data are not publicly reported.