Edwards County

Key demographics for Edwards County, Texas

• Population size:

  • 1,422 (2020 Decennial Census)

• Age (ACS 2018–2022):

  • Median age: ~48.6 years
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 65 and over: ~26%

• Gender (ACS 2018–2022):

  • Male: ~52.2%
  • Female: ~47.8%

• Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census; mutually exclusive by Hispanic origin):

  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~56.9%
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~41.3%
  • Non-Hispanic Black: ~0.4%
  • Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.4%
  • Non-Hispanic Asian: ~0.2%
  • Non-Hispanic Two+ or Other: ~0.8%

• Households (ACS 2018–2022):

  • Total households: ~584
  • Average household size: ~2.43
  • Family households: ~64% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~52%
  • Households with children under 18: ~25%

Note: Edwards County is small; ACS figures carry relatively large margins of error. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census; 2018–2022 ACS).

Edwards County, TX — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: 1,400 residents spread across ~2,100 sq mi (0.7 people/sq mi), among the sparsest in Texas.
• Connectivity: About two-thirds of households report a broadband subscription (ACS 5-year). Many rely on smartphone-only service, fixed wireless, or satellite; fiber is limited. FCC maps show notable coverage gaps outside Rocksprings; cellular service can be spotty on ranch roads.
• Estimated email users: 800–1,000 residents use email at least occasionally. Method: population × internet access (≈60–75%) × email adoption among internet users (≈85–95%).
• Age mix of email users (approx.): 13–24: 15–20%; 25–44: 30–35%; 45–64: 30–35%; 65+: 15–25%. The county skews older than Texas overall, so mid/older adults make up a larger share of users.
• Gender split: Near parity; a slight male tilt in the county population likely yields a small male majority among users.
• Trends: Gradual gains via mobile networks and newer satellite options; public Wi‑Fi (library/schools) remains important for households without home broadband.

Sources: U.S. Census/ACS 5‑year estimates and FCC broadband availability data. Figures are directional estimates for planning, not precise counts.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Edwards County, Texas

Context: Edwards County is a very low‑density, ranching and hunting‑oriented county centered on Rocksprings. Its geography (canyons/plateaus) and sparse infrastructure make its mobile experience meaningfully different from Texas overall.

User estimates (order‑of‑magnitude, based on recent Census population and typical rural adoption rates)

• Population baseline: roughly 1,400–1,550 residents.
• Adult smartphone users: about 1,000–1,100 individuals.
  • Method: high share of older adults depresses adoption vs. Texas; weighted adoption among adults ~80–85% vs ~90% statewide, plus most teens use smartphones.
• Active mobile lines in county (handsets + hotspots + ranch/IoT devices): roughly 1,200–1,400 resident‑associated lines, with seasonal spikes from visiting hunters and leaseholders that materially increase traffic on fall weekends.
• Mobile‑only or mobile‑primary internet households: approximately 25–35% of households (higher than the state), reflecting limited fixed broadband outside town centers and the practicality of hotspots for ranches/leases.

Demographic drivers and how they differ from Texas overall

• Older age structure:
  • Share of residents 65+ is roughly double the Texas average, which lowers overall smartphone adoption, increases basic‑phone retention, and raises reliance on voice/SMS and Wi‑Fi calling.
• Hispanic plurality and bilingual households:
  • Messaging apps (WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger) are widely used for family/work coordination; prepaid plans are comparatively popular.
• Work patterns:
  • Ranching, wildlife management, and outdoor contracting translate to daytime use far from towers, frequent use of external antennas/boosters, and more reliance on offline maps and asynchronous messaging.
• Income and education:
  • Lower median income than Texas overall nudges plan selection toward value/prepaid and extends device replacement cycles; households are more likely to share lines or tether rather than maintain separate home broadband.

Digital infrastructure and coverage characteristics that diverge from state‑level patterns

• Network availability and technology mix:
  • LTE is the primary workhorse. Low‑band 5G is present mainly along highway corridors (US‑377, TX‑55, TX‑41) and in/near Rocksprings; mid‑band 5G (e.g., C‑band) is sparse to nonexistent; mmWave is absent.
  • Practical speeds vary widely: single‑digit Mbps in canyons and pastureland; tens of Mbps in town or near highway‑adjacent sites. This is well below typical metro Texas performance.
• Carrier balance:
  • AT&T and Verizon generally provide the most usable footprint across backroads; T‑Mobile coverage is more corridor‑centric and can drop rapidly off‑pavement. Public‑safety Band‑14 (FirstNet) upgrades have improved AT&T rural reach. This split is more pronounced than in Texas cities where all three are competitive.
• Tower density and terrain limits:
  • Few macro sites serve large areas; hills, draws, and live‑oak cover create dead zones and rapid signal fade with small lateral moves—much more acute than in flat or urban Texas counties.
• Backhaul constraints:
  • Outside town centers, many sites depend on microwave backhaul. Limited fiber laterals constrain upgrade economics, which slows mid‑band 5G rollout compared with statewide trends.
• Indoor service and Wi‑Fi calling:
  • Metal‑roofed homes and ranch structures lead to heavy reliance on Wi‑Fi calling and repeaters; this behavior is more common here than statewide.
• Seasonal load and visitors:
  • Hunting seasons and events drive short bursts of congestion on the few serving sectors near leases and highway junctions—an atypical demand pattern versus the steadier urban load profile.
• Alternative access:
  • Fixed wireless (WISPs) and satellite fill many gaps; some households rely on phone hotspots as primary home internet, a pattern notably above the Texas average.

What this means in practice

• Coverage first, speed second: Residents prioritize reliable signal and voice/text reach over peak 5G speeds.
• Plan and device choices skew pragmatic: value/prepaid plans, ruggedized or mid‑tier Androids, external antennas/boosters, and hotspot add‑ons are common.
• Public services and businesses often publish “call/text only” or “text preferred” contact norms during field hours, and emergency coordination leans on FirstNet where available.

Notes on uncertainty

• County‑level telecom stats are sparse and small‑sampled. Figures above are estimates triangulated from rural Texas adoption patterns, age structure, and observed infrastructure norms; actual counts will vary by carrier footprint and season.

Edwards County, TX — social media snapshot (modeled estimates)

Context

• Population: ≈1,400 residents (2020 Census). Rural, mobile-first internet usage is common; wired broadband is patchy, so YouTube/Facebook and messaging apps dominate.

How many people use social media?

• Monthly active social media users (13+): about 750–900 people (roughly 55–65% of total residents; 65–75% of residents age 13+).
• Device access: predominantly smartphones; desktop use is limited and task-specific (work, school, long-form video).

User mix by age (share of social media users)

• 13–17: ~8%
• 18–29: ~18%
• 30–49: ~30%
• 50–64: ~26%
• 65+: ~18%

Gender breakdown (share of social media users)

• Women: ~51%
• Men: ~49% Notes: Women skew higher on Facebook and Pinterest; men skew higher on YouTube and X/Reddit.

Most-used platforms (share of social media users; overlaps expected)

• YouTube: ~80%
• Facebook: ~75%
• Instagram: ~30%
• TikTok: ~30%
• Snapchat: ~20%
• Pinterest: ~20%
• WhatsApp: ~20% (higher among bilingual/extended-family networks)
• X (Twitter): ~10%
• Reddit/LinkedIn: each ~8–12% (niche)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first on Facebook: Local groups drive most engagement (school sports, church events, yard sales, hunting/outdoors, lost-and-found, road/weather alerts). Marketplace is a key channel for vehicles, ranch gear, and household items.
• News and weather via social: Severe weather, wildfire updates, road closures, and school announcements get the fastest uptake when posted in local FB groups or shared via Messenger.
• Short-form video growth: Teens and 20-somethings split time between TikTok and YouTube Shorts; creation volumes are modest, consumption is high.
• Messaging over public posting: Many residents prefer private FB Messenger and WhatsApp threads for coordination; public posting frequency is moderate.
• Business usage: Small businesses and outfitters rely on Facebook Pages and Groups; paid ads are modest, with best ROI from geo-targeted boosts tied to events, hunting seasons, and holiday traffic.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; weekday daytime spikes align with school or county announcements.

Notes on methodology and certainty

• County-level platform data isn’t published; figures are modeled from the county’s size/age profile and rural Texas/U.S. usage patterns (e.g., Pew Research, DataReportal, FCC broadband data). Treat percentages as directional with a ±5–10 percentage-point margin in small populations.