Dawson County

Dawson County, Texas — Key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates; rounded)

• Population: ~12,300
• Age
  • Median age: ~36
  • Under 18: ~27%
  • 18 to 64: ~58%
  • 65 and over: ~15%
• Sex
  • Male: ~52–53%
  • Female: ~47–48%
• Race and Hispanic origin
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~60–65%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~30–33%
  • Black or African American alone: ~3–4%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
  • Asian alone: <1%
  • Two or more races/Other: ~1–2%
• Households
  • Total households: ~4,100–4,300
  • Average household size: ~2.8–3.0
  • Family households: ~70–75% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~35–40%
  • Married-couple households: ~45–50%
  • Female householder, no spouse: ~15–20%

Dawson County, TX (pop. ≈13,000) email usage snapshot — estimates based on Census population, typical rural Texas age mix, and national email adoption rates.

• Estimated adult email users: 8.0–8.5k (of ≈9.3k adults); daily users: ~6–7k.
• Age distribution (share of adult email users; adoption rates in parentheses):
  • 18–34: ~30–33% of users; adoption ~90–95%.
  • 35–64: ~48–52% of users; adoption ~85–90%.
  • 65+: ~17–20% of users; adoption ~70–80%.
• Gender split: roughly even (email adoption shows minimal male/female difference nationally; expect ~50/50 locally).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet/broadband adoption likely 10–15 points below Texas urban averages; expect ~70–80% with home broadband in this rural county.
  • Smartphone-only access is material (~10–15% of households), especially among lower-income and younger adults.
  • Outside Lamesa, fixed wireless and satellite are common supplements to DSL/cable; public Wi‑Fi (schools, library) helps bridge gaps.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Low density (~14–15 people per square mile across ~900 sq. miles) raises last‑mile costs and contributes to patchier fixed broadband.
  • Population concentrated in/near Lamesa; connectivity thins in agricultural areas.

Note: Figures are reasoned estimates; local surveys or ACS county tables will refine these ranges.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Dawson County, Texas (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)

County context (to frame estimates)

• Rural, small population (~12–13k residents; majority Hispanic/Latino, lower median income than Texas overall, and an older age profile).
• Fixed home broadband availability and adoption lag state averages outside Lamesa and along farm/ranch areas, pushing greater reliance on cellular.

User estimates

• Smartphone users (age 13+): approximately 9,300–9,900 people.
• Adult smartphone users (18+): roughly 8,200–8,700.
• Households primarily relying on mobile data (smartphone-only or cellular-only internet): about 1,000–1,300 households, noticeably higher share than the Texas average. How derived: county population and household counts from recent Census estimates, combined with Pew Research smartphone ownership rates adjusted downward for rural/older populations and upward for higher mobile-dependence where fixed broadband is limited.

Demographic breakdown (how Dawson differs from Texas)

• Age
  • 13–34: near-universal smartphone ownership, similar to state.
  • 35–64: high ownership but slightly more mobile-only internet than the state average.
  • 65+: ownership materially lower than state metros; a larger slice of seniors are mobile-only because of cost and limited wired options.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Hispanic/Latino residents form a larger share than state average and show higher mobile-only internet reliance (e.g., using smartphones as primary home internet) compared with White non-Hispanic residents.
• Income and education
  • Low- and moderate-income households are more likely to be smartphone-dependent than statewide peers.
  • Households with high school or less are more mobile-reliant than the Texas average due to cost and availability of wired options.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (distinct from state-level experience)

• Network availability
  • Baseline 4G LTE is common around Lamesa and major corridors; coverage becomes patchier in outlying agricultural areas compared with the generally dense statewide grid.
  • Low-band 5G signals are present along main routes; mid-band/high-capacity 5G is far less prevalent than in Texas metros, so average 5G performance trails the state.
• Capacity and performance
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile and more microwave backhaul on remote towers lead to greater peak-hour slowdowns than typical urban/suburban Texas markets.
  • Metal-roof homes and larger cell radii mean more indoor coverage issues than statewide norms.
• Alternatives to wired broadband
  • Fixed wireless (cellular hotspots or WISP) plays a larger role than in Texas overall; cellular data is frequently the de facto home internet outside town centers.
• Public safety and institutions
  • Schools, libraries, and public agencies rely on carrier networks for hotspots and redundancy more than urban districts, reflecting the limited wired footprint.

Key trends vs Texas overall

• Higher share of mobile-only households and users who treat the smartphone as their primary internet connection.
• More variability in signal quality and speeds once off highways and out of Lamesa; fewer mid-band 5G options.
• Slightly lower smartphone ownership among seniors, but greater smartphone dependence among low-income and Hispanic households.
• Prepaid and cost-sensitive plans likely make up a larger share than in metro Texas due to income mix and provider promotions in rural markets.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Figures are estimates triangulated from Census/ACS household counts, rural vs urban adoption patterns from Pew Research, and FCC-reported rural broadband gaps. County-specific carrier build-outs change frequently; exact tower counts, provider lists, and block-level coverage should be confirmed against the latest FCC broadband map and carrier coverage tools.

Dawson County, TX social media snapshot (est. 2025)

User stats

• Population: ~12.6k; residents 13+: ~10.3k
• Social media users (13+): ~7.7k–8.3k (≈73–80%)
• Smartphone access: roughly 85–90%; home broadband: ~65–75% (rural TX benchmarks)

Most‑used platforms (share of local social media users)

• YouTube: 78–83%
• Facebook: 70–76%
• Facebook Messenger: 52–58%
• Instagram: 35–42%
• WhatsApp: 30–38% (elevated by large Hispanic/Latino population)
• TikTok: 28–36%
• Pinterest: 28–35% (skews female)
• Snapchat: 25–32% (skews under 30)
• X (Twitter): 12–18%
• Reddit: 10–16%
• Nextdoor: 4–8%

Age patterns (share using at least one platform; top behaviors)

• 13–17: 95%+; TikTok/Snapchat/YouTube heavy; seldom post on Facebook
• 18–29: ~95%; Instagram/TikTok/YouTube core; Snapchat for messaging
• 30–49: 85–90%; Facebook/YouTube dominate; more Reels/TikTok viewing than posting
• 50–64: 70–75%; Facebook primary; WhatsApp/Messenger for family groups
• 65+: 50–55%; Facebook and YouTube; limited multi‑platform use

Gender breakdown

• Overall users: ~52–55% women, ~45–48% men
• Skews: women over‑index on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men on YouTube/Reddit/X; TikTok and WhatsApp roughly balanced

Behavioral trends

• Community-first: Strong reliance on Facebook Groups (schools, churches, youth sports, farm/ranch buy‑sell, oilfield jobs, yard sales); Marketplace is a key utility
• Private/ephemeral sharing: Teens/young adults favor Snapchat and IG DMs/Stories; families coordinate via Messenger/WhatsApp
• Short‑form video: TikTok and IG Reels for local highlights (high‑school sports, ag/rodeo/oilfield life, weather, local eateries)
• Bilingual engagement: Notable Spanish‑language activity; WhatsApp group chats and Spanish posts from churches/small businesses
• News/alerts: Weather, road conditions, school closures, and public safety updates trigger spikes; Facebook pages of local institutions act as hubs
• Time‑of‑day: Peak use around 6–8am, lunch, and 8–10pm; Sundays high; seasonal shifts during planting/harvest and football season
• Small‑business tactics: Facebook posts/Events and local group promos outperform; Instagram for boutiques and food; boosted posts by ZIP; growing experiments on TikTok for reach
• Trust dynamics: Posts from known locals/admins perform best; many prefer private groups/DMs over public feeds

Notes

• Figures are modeled estimates using Pew Research 2024 platform adoption, ACS demographics for Dawson County, and rural Texas usage patterns. Treat percentages as directional (±5–8 points).