Dickens County

Here are key demographics for Dickens County, Texas. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5‑year estimates) and rounded for clarity.

Population

• Total population (2020 Census): 1,770

Age

• Median age: ~48 years
• Under 18: ~20%
• 18 to 64: ~55%
• 65 and over: ~25%

Gender

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race/ethnicity (of total population)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~65–67%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~25–28%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Two or more races/other, non-Hispanic: ~3–5%

Households

• Total households: ~800
• Average household size: ~2.1–2.2
• Family households: ~60%
• Married-couple households: ~45–50%
• One-person households: ~33–38% (about half of these are 65+ living alone)
• Households with children under 18: ~20–25%
• Housing tenure: ~80% owner-occupied, ~20% renter-occupied

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census (population count) and 2018–2022 ACS 5-year estimates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household characteristics). Small population size means margins of error are higher; figures are approximate.

Dickens County, TX is very rural (about 1,700–1,800 people across ~900 sq mi; ~2 people per sq mi). Applying typical U.S. email adoption rates to a rural age mix:

• Estimated email users: ~1,250–1,350 residents.
• Age breakdown (approximate users):
  • Teens 12–17: ~90–110 (about 80% use, largely via school accounts)
  • 18–29: ~180–200 (≈95%)
  • 30–49: ~380–410 (≈95%)
  • 50–64: ~260–300 (≈90%)
  • 65+: ~300–350 (≈70–80%)
• Gender split among users: roughly even (about 49–51% either way).

Digital access and trends:

• Email is commonly checked on smartphones; many households are smartphone‑only due to limited wired broadband outside Spur/Dickens.
• Connectivity is patchier on ranchlands; fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps. Best cellular/LTE coverage clusters along major routes (e.g., US‑82/70) and in towns; signal degrades in outlying areas.
• Public Wi‑Fi (libraries/schools) acts as key access points.
• Ongoing state/federal rural broadband initiatives target underserved West Texas counties like Dickens; gradual improvements are expected, especially near towns.

Notes: Estimates use national email adoption (e.g., Pew) adjusted for rural/older demographics and a county population around 1,750.

Below is a concise, evidence‑informed snapshot of mobile phone usage in Dickens County, Texas, with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns. Figures are estimates derived from recent ACS/Pew patterns for rural Texas, FCC coverage data, and county demographics.

At‑a‑glance estimates

• Population context: ~1,700–1,800 residents; ~1,300–1,400 adults; ~700 households.
• Adult smartphone users: roughly 1,000–1,100 (about 75–82% of adults), below the Texas average (~87–90%).
• Mobile‑only home internet: about 18–28% of households rely mainly on a cellular data plan for home internet, higher than Texas overall (~12–16%).
• Primary carriers present: AT&T and Verizon have the broadest LTE/low‑band 5G along the main corridors; T‑Mobile is present but more localized near towns.

Demographic breakdown of usage (estimates)

• Age
  • 18–49: very high smartphone adoption (≈90–95%), close to the state average.
  • 50–64: moderately high adoption (≈80–85%), modestly below state.
  • 65+: lower adoption (≈55–65%), notably below state; flip‑phones and basic LTE devices still used.
• Income and education
  • Lower median income and lower four‑year college attainment than Texas overall correlate with:
    • More price‑sensitive plan selection (MVNOs, prepaid, smaller data buckets).
    • Higher likelihood of sharing devices or delaying upgrades.
• Race/ethnicity
  • County is majority non‑Hispanic White with a sizable Hispanic minority; adoption gaps track income/age more than ethnicity. Spanish‑enabled Android devices and prepaid plans are common among cost‑sensitive users.

How usage differs from the Texas statewide picture

• Lower overall smartphone penetration and slower upgrade cycles, especially among 65+.
• Higher share of mobile‑only households using cellular as primary home internet, due to limited wireline options outside town centers.
• Heavier reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and data‑conscious behaviors (download over Wi‑Fi in town; conservative video streaming off‑Wi‑Fi).
• Coverage‑driven behavior: voice/SMS and Wi‑Fi calling remain important in fringe areas; app usage that tolerates low bandwidth (messaging, async media) is favored over high‑bitrate live video when off Wi‑Fi.
• Platform mix likely skews slightly more Android than the Texas average, reflecting price sensitivity (no precise split available).

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage pattern
  • Strongest along US‑82 and SH‑70 corridors and in/around Spur and Dickens; patchy service on ranch roads and in canyons/mesas near the Caprock.
  • 4G LTE is the baseline; 5G is mainly low‑band coverage (broad reach but modest speeds). Mid‑band 5G is limited or localized.
• Tower grid and backhaul
  • Sparse macro‑tower spacing typical of rural West Texas leads to larger cells and variable indoor coverage.
  • Backhaul is a mix of microwave and limited fiber; capacity constraints can show during evening peaks or events.
• Carrier specifics
  • AT&T and Verizon anchor most coverage; AT&T FirstNet (Band 14) improves public‑safety and some rural coverage.
  • T‑Mobile presence is improving but more town‑centric; rural mid‑band 5G remains spotty.
• Wireline interplay
  • In‑town blocks may have fiber or VDSL from regional co‑ops/ILECs; large portions of the county lack cable. This mismatch pushes rural households toward fixed wireless, satellite, or mobile‑only setups.
• Public connectivity
  • Schools, library, and a handful of businesses in Spur/Dickens provide key Wi‑Fi offload points; outside towns, public Wi‑Fi is scarce.

Practical implications

• Expect more mobile‑only homes, data‑budgeting behavior, and reliance on Wi‑Fi when in town, versus the state average.
• Network experiences vary sharply by location: good along highways/towns; dead zones in low‑lying or shielded terrain.
• Programs that pair affordable plans/devices with signal‑improvement (home extenders, external antennas, Wi‑Fi calling) have outsized impact here compared with most of Texas.

Notes on methodology

• County adoption figures are inferred from ACS device‑ownership data for rural Texas counties, Pew Research on smartphone adoption by age, and FCC mobile coverage maps for West Texas. Given Dickens County’s small population and sparse infrastructure, ranges are provided rather than single‑point estimates.

Note: Public, platform-verified stats are rarely available at the county level for a small rural area like Dickens County. Figures below are modeled estimates based on Pew Research Center 2024 U.S./rural benchmarks, Texas rural patterns, and the county’s older age profile.

Headline size and penetration

• Population: ~1.7–1.9k residents; social-media-eligible (13+): ~1.5k.
• Social media users: ~1,050–1,250 (about 70–80% of residents 13+).

Age mix of social media users (share of users)

• 13–17: ~8–10%
• 18–24: ~9–12%
• 25–34: ~14–17%
• 35–49: ~25–30%
• 50–64: ~22–26%
• 65+: ~15–20% Skew: Older than urban Texas; very strong 35–64 presence.

Gender breakdown (share of users)

• Women: ~50–55%
• Men: ~45–50% Pattern: Women over-index on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube/Reddit/X.

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

• Facebook: 70–80%
• YouTube: 70–80%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 20–30%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (concentrated in teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (primarily women 25–54)
• WhatsApp: 10–20% (family/work crews; bilingual households)
• X (Twitter): 10–15% (news/weather/alerts)
• Reddit: 10–15% (younger males)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (limited by low neighborhood density)

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the local hub: county/city pages (Dickens, Spur), school sports, churches, events, buy‑sell‑trade and Marketplace; heavy use of Groups and Messenger for coordination.
• YouTube is leaned on for how‑to/DIY, ag/ranching content, church services, local sports highlights; mostly consumption over creation.
• Instagram is used by small businesses and events; Stories > feed; much cross‑posting from Facebook.
• TikTok/Snapchat are youth‑centric for entertainment and private communication; creator base is small but engagement is high among 15–34.
• X is utility‑driven (weather, TxDOT, regional news); more “lurking” than posting.
• WhatsApp supports family/work group chats; practical coordination.
• Usage peaks evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; sharp spikes during weather events, school sports, community festivals.
• Mobile‑first behavior; variable broadband means fewer live streams, more short‑form video; preference for closed groups and local relevance over public hashtags.