Crosby County

To keep this accurate: do you want the latest Census estimates (QuickFacts/ACS 2019–2023 5-year) or the fixed 2020 Census counts? I can provide either set of figures for Crosby County, TX.

Crosby County, TX — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Population/density: ≈5,100 residents across ~900 sq mi (about 6 people/sq mi). Most residents live in Crosbyton, Ralls, and Lorenzo; large rural areas have sparse wired options.
• Estimated email users: 2,600–3,100 residents (about 70–85% of adults). Adults ≈3,600–3,800.
• Age distribution of email users (approx. share):
  • 18–34: 30–35% (very high adoption)
  • 35–54: 35–40% (high adoption)
  • 55–64: 15–20% (moderate–high)
  • 65+: 10–15% (lower, but rising)
• Gender split of users: roughly even (about 49–51% male/female).
• Digital access trends:
  • Households with internet: roughly 70–80%; adoption lags outside towns due to cost/coverage.
  • Access types: cable/DSL (and some fiber) in town centers; fixed wireless and satellite common in outlying ranchland.
  • Smartphone‑only connectivity: about 10–20% of households, higher in lower‑income and remote areas.
  • Mobile coverage is strongest along town corridors; speeds and reliability drop in sparsely populated areas.

Notes: Figures synthesize recent Census/ACS internet-use patterns for rural Texas and national email adoption research; treat as directional estimates rather than precise counts.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Crosby County, Texas (distinct from statewide patterns)

Snapshot and user estimates

• Population baseline: roughly 5,000–6,000 residents; adults are about 72–76% of the population in similar rural West Texas counties.
• Estimated unique mobile phone users: 4,000–4,600 people.
  • Adult mobile ownership: about 92–96% of adults → 3,300–4,100 users.
  • Teens (13–17): 60–75% with a smartphone → 250–400 users.
  • A small number of children and seniors with basic phones add to the total.
• Smartphone share: 85–90% of mobile users carry smartphones; 10–15% still use basic/feature phones (higher basic-phone retention than Texas overall).

How Crosby County differs from Texas overall

• Higher smartphone-only internet reliance: an estimated 20–30% of adults rely on a smartphone as their primary or only internet connection (vs roughly high-teens statewide).
• More prepaid plan usage and price sensitivity: prepaid likely 35–45% of lines (vs ~25–30% statewide), driven by lower incomes and credit constraints.
• Coverage-driven carrier mixing: more residents keep or switch to the carrier with the strongest local signal rather than brand/price alone; roaming and multi-line households with mixed carriers are more common.
• Slower mobile speeds and more dead zones: fewer towers and challenging terrain (Caprock escarpment, canyons, wide cell spacing) yield lower median speeds and more pockets of weak service than state averages.
• Older devices, longer replacement cycles: device turnover lags Texas metro areas, affecting 5G utilization and advanced features adoption.
• Messaging/app mix: relatively higher use of WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for bilingual family networks; lighter use of data-heavy streaming outside Wi‑Fi zones.

Demographic drivers and estimated breakdown

• Age: Older-than-state age profile means:
  • Seniors 65+: higher basic-phone or talk-and-text plans; lower app diversity.
  • Working-age adults: strong smartphone uptake, but budget plans and data caps are common.
  • Teens: strong smartphone penetration, heavy use of social/video when Wi‑Fi is available (schools, libraries).
• Ethnicity: A higher Hispanic share (roughly half the county vs ~40% statewide) correlates with:
  • More WhatsApp use and family group messaging.
  • Slightly higher smartphone-only reliance where home broadband is unavailable/expensive.
• Income/education: Lower median household income and higher poverty rates than Texas overall contribute to:
  • Prepaid dominance, multi-user shared data plans, and hotspot tethering.
  • Greater sensitivity to ACP loss (Affordable Connectivity Program ended funding in 2024), nudging some households to depend more on mobile data.

Digital infrastructure highlights (and gaps)

• Macro coverage:
  • AT&T and Verizon generally offer the most consistent rural coverage; T‑Mobile coverage is improving along main corridors but remains more variable off-road.
  • 5G: low-band 5G is common along highways and town centers; mid-band 5G capacity is spotty compared with Texas metros, so real-world 5G speed gains are modest.
• Tower density and terrain:
  • Wide inter-site spacing and the Caprock/canyon topography create cell-edge zones with weak indoor coverage, especially in metal-roof homes, barns, and outbuildings.
• Backhaul:
  • Mix of fiber backhaul on primary corridors and microwave elsewhere; constrained backhaul in outlying sectors limits peak and busy-hour speeds relative to urban Texas.
• Public/anchor connectivity:
  • Schools and the public library are important Wi‑Fi anchors; after ACP and emergency school hotspot programs wound down, reliance shifted back to personal mobile data.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Fiber-to-the-home and cable coverage are limited compared with state averages; DSL and fixed wireless remain common. Where home broadband is absent or unreliable, smartphones/hotspots fill the gap.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence aids first responders, but residents still report coverage variability in low-lying and sparsely populated areas.

Usage patterns you’re likely to see on the ground

• Plan mix: heavier tilt to prepaid/MVNOs; cautious data use, with offloading to Wi‑Fi where possible.
• Device mix: higher Android share than state average; more budget and older-model iPhones in use.
• Video and gaming: lower sustained mobile streaming outside town centers; peak usage evenings at home over Wi‑Fi, school hours near campuses.
• Seasonal effects: agriculture-related seasonal workers can create short-term spikes in prepaid activations and localized network load.

Implications for outreach, service design, or planning

• To reach the most users, prioritize SMS/WhatsApp/Facebook channels; keep downloads small and offline-friendly.
• Offer low-cap, prepaid-friendly options and support for hotspot use.
• For network upgrades, mid-band 5G plus additional backhaul to town-center and canyon-edge sites would deliver outsized benefits versus statewide average ROI assumptions.
• Public Wi‑Fi and device assistance programs (post-ACP) can materially reduce smartphone-only dependency in the county.

Notes on method

• Estimates synthesize rural Texas adoption patterns from national surveys (e.g., Pew) with ACS-style demographics and typical rural network constraints; they are directional ranges rather than point measurements. For project-grade planning, validate with current FCC maps, carrier drive tests, school/library usage stats, and recent ACS 5-year tables.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot of social media use in Crosby County, Texas. Because hard county‑level platform data aren’t published, figures are estimates extrapolated from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. and rural user patterns, Texas rural behavior, and small‑county demographics. Treat as directional, not exact.

Overall user stats

• Population: ~5,000 residents
• Estimated social media users (13+): 3,000–3,500
  • Adults: roughly 72–78% of adults use at least one platform
  • Teens (13–17): ~85–95% use at least one platform

Most‑used platforms (share of social‑media users; overlapping)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–60%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• TikTok: 30–35%
• Snapchat: 28–32% (high among teens/young adults)
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (higher with Hispanic/Latino families)
• Pinterest: 20–25% (skews female)
• X/Twitter: 12–18% (used by local gov/schools/sports followers)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (job seeking/professional)
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor/Threads: <10% each (limited traction in small towns)

Age patterns (approximate)

• 13–17: YouTube ~95%; TikTok 75–85%; Snapchat 70–80%; Instagram 70–80%; Facebook ≤30%
• 18–29: YouTube 90–95%; Instagram 70–80%; TikTok 60–70%; Snapchat 55–65%; Facebook 45–55%
• 30–49: Facebook 75–80%; YouTube 85–90%; Instagram 45–55%; TikTok 35–45%; Snapchat 25–35%
• 50–64: Facebook ~70–80%; YouTube ~70–80%; Instagram 25–35%; TikTok 20–30%
• 65+: Facebook 55–65%; YouTube 45–55%; others ≤20%

Estimated user base composition by age

• 13–17: ~9–12%
• 18–29: ~18–22%
• 30–49: ~32–36%
• 50–64: ~18–22%
• 65+: ~12–16%

Gender breakdown

• Overall users: roughly even, Female ~51–53%, Male ~47–49%
• Platform skews:
  • More female: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok (slight to moderate)
  • More male: YouTube, Reddit, X/Twitter (slight to moderate)
• Messaging: Women lean Messenger/WhatsApp for family/community coordination; Men lean YouTube/X for sports, news, weather

Behavioral trends on the ground

• Community hub = Facebook
  • Heavy use of Groups for local news, school and church updates, classifieds/buy‑sell‑trade, lost & found, road and weather alerts
  • Marketplace is a primary local classifieds channel
• Local content drives engagement
  • High school sports, livestock/FFA/4‑H, farming/ranching tips, hunting/fishing, severe weather are top topics
  • Event‑driven spikes (football Fridays, storms, festivals); best posting windows: evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends
• Video is growing but bandwidth‑aware
  • Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) performs well; many residents are mobile‑only or on limited data, so under‑60‑second clips outperform
• Information pathways
  • Many share links privately via Messenger/WhatsApp instead of public posting
  • Local administrators/moderators in Facebook Groups influence what spreads; rumor control and “seen in town” posts are common
• Language/culture
  • Notable Hispanic/Latino presence boosts WhatsApp, bilingual posts, and Spanish‑language pages
• Business usage
  • Small businesses rely on boosted Facebook/Instagram posts targeted by ZIP; success measured by comments/shares and foot traffic more than clicks
• Platform adoption notes
  • X/Twitter is niche (civic/sports/weather watchers); LinkedIn used mainly for job changes
  • Nextdoor has limited reach in small communities; Facebook Groups fill that role
  • Newer networks (e.g., Threads) have minimal local penetration to date

Confidence: medium. Estimates blend national and rural Texas usage patterns with small‑county demographics; exact county‑level platform shares are not directly published.