Culberson County

Which data vintage do you prefer?

• 2020 Decennial Census (exact counts; best for total population and race/ethnicity)
• Latest ACS 5-year estimates (e.g., 2018–2022; best for age, sex, households, income, etc. for small counties)

I can provide both side by side if helpful.

Culberson County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: ~2,200 people across ~3,800 sq mi (≈0.6 residents/sq mi). Most residents live in/around Van Horn; connectivity drops quickly outside town.
• Estimated email users: ~1,500–1,700 residents use email regularly. Basis: adult share ~75–80% of population; rural adult email adoption ~85–90%, plus most teens.
• Age pattern (adoption rates, not exact counts):
  • 13–17: ~75–85%
  • 18–34: ~95%
  • 35–64: ~90%
  • 65+: ~65–75% The most active cohort is 35–64, with steady use among 18–34; seniors participate but at lower rates.
• Gender split: Roughly even; any population tilt toward males is small, and email use shows minimal gender gap.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription is below Texas’s urban average; expect roughly 55–65% of households with a home broadband plan.
  • A meaningful share (about 20–30%) are mobile-only internet users, relying on smartphones for email.
  • Best speeds and reliability are in Van Horn; ranch/outlying areas depend more on fixed wireless or satellite.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (library, schools, local businesses) is an important access channel.

Notes: Figures are reasoned estimates combining recent census totals with national/rural tech-adoption patterns.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Culberson County, Texas (focus on how it differs from statewide patterns)

Population baseline

• Residents: roughly 2,100–2,300 people (2023–2024 range), concentrated in and around Van Horn, with large unpopulated tracts (Guadalupe Mountains NP, ranchland).

User estimates

• Active mobile lines: about 2,000–2,600 total (roughly 90–120 lines per 100 residents). Rural line penetration often trails urban Texas, but highway and tourist traffic boost observed device counts.
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 1,300–1,500 residents (about 80–85% of adults), a few points below the Texas average.
• Mobile-only internet households: estimated 35–50% rely primarily on cellular or fixed-wireless via cellular (well above the Texas average, which is closer to the high teens/low 20s).
• Transient device load: on typical days, the number of nonresident devices on towers (I-10 travelers, US-62/180 to Carlsbad/El Paso, Guadalupe Mountains NP visitors, freight) can rival or exceed the resident base during peaks—an atypical pattern versus most Texas counties.

Demographic and behavioral notes

• Ethnicity/language: majority Hispanic/Latino (roughly three-quarters or more). Higher use of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Spanish-language apps and media than the state average.
• Age/income: slightly older and lower median income than Texas overall. Results in higher prepaid adoption, shared family plans, and longer device replacement cycles.
• Work patterns: oil/gas service traffic affects the northeast/east of the county; seasonal spikes tied to national park visitation. Both produce uneven, time-of-day and day-of-week network load.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Where coverage is strong: highway corridors (I-10 through Van Horn; US-62/180 toward Guadalupe Mountains/Carlsbad) have the most reliable service and capacity.
• 5G profile: primarily low-band/sub-6 5G (AT&T/FirstNet, Verizon DSS, T-Mobile 600 MHz) along corridors. Mid-band 5G (C-band or 2.5 GHz) is sparse or limited to a few sites, so peak speeds and capacity lag urban Texas.
• Off-corridor gaps: large dead zones in the Guadalupe Mountains, canyons, and ranchlands; indoor penetration drops quickly away from highways. Signal boosters and cellular fixed-wireless routers are common workarounds.
• Backhaul: fiber follows I-10; many sites elsewhere depend on microwave. Redundancy is limited—single fiber cuts or microwave weather fade can degrade service across wide areas, unlike the multi-path redundancy common in metros.
• Public safety: AT&T FirstNet present on main highway sites; coverage becomes thin in backcountry. Hikers and ranch operations frequently rely on satellite messengers as backup.
• Private/industrial networks: pockets of CBRS/private LTE and satellite backhaul appear at oil/gas and quarry operations more than in typical Texas counties.
• Public Wi‑Fi/anchors: fiber connectivity is concentrated at anchor institutions in Van Horn; community Wi‑Fi options are sparse, increasing reliance on mobile data.

How Culberson differs from Texas overall

• Coverage geometry: networks are designed around long-haul corridors and tourism nodes rather than neighborhoods; large areas have no service. Texas overall has far more contiguous coverage.
• Capacity mix: fewer mid-band 5G sites and smaller sector counts per tower mean lower average speeds and faster congestion during travel/tourism peaks than in urban/suburban Texas.
• Access mode: a much higher share of households depend on cellular as their primary or only internet; fixed broadband options are limited compared with statewide norms.
• Plan types and devices: higher prepaid share, more data-capped plans, and older devices; upgrade cycles are slower than the Texas average.
• Demand volatility: nonresident device load (I-10 freight/auto traffic and national park visitors) drives atypically large, spiky demand relative to the resident base—rare in most counties.
• Resilience: less backhaul/path redundancy; outages or weather can have outsized effects compared with metro Texas, where failover capacity is common.

Implications for planning

• Capacity investments along I-10 and US-62/180 yield outsized benefits (serving residents, freight, and tourism simultaneously).
• Mid-band 5G and additional sectors on existing highway sites would mitigate peak congestion and improve fixed-wireless viability for households.
• Off-corridor coverage and public-safety reliability will depend on a mix of new macro/small cells, microwave hardening, and satellite augmentation.
• Digital inclusion efforts should assume higher Spanish-language demand, prepaid orientation, and a mobile-first internet experience.

Notes on uncertainty and sources to validate

• The figures above are estimates based on rural adoption patterns, county population, and corridor effects. For project-grade numbers, validate with: ACS/1-year microdata (device and internet access), FCC Broadband Map and MBS (mobile coverage), carrier coverage and C-band/2.5 GHz buildouts, TxDOT AADT for I-10 and US-62/180, and NPS visitation for Guadalupe Mountains NP.

Below is an estimate-based snapshot; county-level social media metrics aren’t directly published, so figures use Culberson County demographics plus rural Texas/Pew Research benchmarks and platform ad-tool ranges.

Population baseline

• Residents: ~2,200
• Adults (18+): ~1,600–1,700
• Active social media users: ~1,200–1,350 (about 70–75% of adults; includes a small number of teens 13–17)

Age mix of local social users (share of users)

• 13–17: 7–9%
• 18–24: 10–12%
• 25–34: 18–22%
• 35–54: 32–36% (largest block)
• 55+: 22–26%

Gender breakdown (share of local social users)

• Men: ~50–54%
• Women: ~46–50% Notes: Facebook/Instagram skew slightly female; YouTube/X/Reddit skew male.

Most‑used platforms (share of local social users; monthly use)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 65–72% (Facebook + Groups/Marketplace are central)
• Instagram: 30–38%
• WhatsApp: 30–40% (higher due to large Hispanic/Latino population)
• TikTok: 25–32%
• Snapchat: 18–22% (concentrated under 30)
• X (Twitter): 12–16%
• Reddit: 6–10%
• LinkedIn: 6–9%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited neighborhood coverage)

Behavioral trends to know

• Mobile‑first, evening‑heavy: Most usage is on phones; activity peaks 7–10 pm and weekends. Daytime spikes track shift work/trucking schedules.
• Facebook Groups + Marketplace = local utility: Community alerts, yard sales, lost/found, school and county updates drive repeat visits.
• Bilingual content performs: English/Spanish posts and WhatsApp sharing matter for reach and trust.
• Video dominates: Short‑form (Reels/TikTok) for entertainment and local happenings; YouTube for how‑to (auto, ranching, DIY), outdoor content, regional news, Spanish music.
• Proximity matters: Sparse population means small on‑platform audiences; geofenced campaigns benefit from wider radiuses (30–100 miles) and lookalikes seeded from regional data.
• Events/seasonality: Traffic lifts around Guadalupe Mountains NP and travel on I‑10; timely posts about weather, road conditions, and local services get outsized engagement.

Method notes

• Estimates synthesized from Pew Research Center (2023–2024 social media use), U.S. Census/ACS for county age/sex mix, rural Texas adoption patterns, FCC broadband indicators, and platform ad‑tool audience ranges. Small‑area figures fluctuate; treat as planning ranges, not exact counts.