El Paso County

Key demographics — El Paso County, Texas

• Population size:

  • 865,657 (2020 Census)

• Age:

  • Median age: ~33
  • Under 18: ~26.5%
  • 65 and over: ~13%

• Gender:

  • Female: ~50.9%
  • Male: ~49.1%

• Racial/ethnic composition (Hispanic origin treated as ethnicity):

  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~82.1%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: ~12.8%
  • Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic: ~3.0%
  • Asian alone, non-Hispanic: ~1.2%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic: ~0.4%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic: ~0.1%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~0.4%

• Household data:

  • Households: ~281,000
  • Average household size: ~3.1
  • Family households: ~74%
  • Average family size: ~3.6
  • Homeownership rate: ~62%
  • Households with children under 18: ~39%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

El Paso County, TX snapshot (2024 est.)

• Population/density: 875,000 residents across ~1,013 sq. mi (860 people/sq. mi). Most residents live in the City of El Paso urban core.
• Estimated email users: ~590,000–620,000 adults. Method: ~74% of residents are 18+; about 92% of U.S. adults use email regularly (Pew), applied to the local adult base.
• Age distribution (share using email; national benchmarks applied locally):
  • 18–29: ~95–98%
  • 30–49: ~95–97%
  • 50–64: ~90–93%
  • 65+: ~80–88%
• Gender split: Roughly even; men and women both ~90%+ email adoption (Pew).
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband subscription: About 78–82% of households have a home broadband plan (ACS-like levels for the county), leaving roughly 1 in 5 without.
  • Smartphone-only access: ~15–22% of households rely primarily on mobile data for internet.
  • Urban vs. rural: Strong 4G/5G coverage and multiple fixed-broadband options in the city; lower fixed-broadband adoption in eastern/rural areas and some colonias.
  • Public access: El Paso Public Libraries and UTEP provide free Wi‑Fi/computers, supporting residents without home service.

Notes: Figures are estimates using recent ACS and Pew patterns tailored to El Paso County’s population.

Summary of mobile phone usage in El Paso County, Texas, with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns

Headline estimates (order of magnitude)

• Population base: ≈0.87–0.89 million residents; ≈0.62–0.66 million adults.
• Likely daily mobile-phone users: roughly 630,000–700,000 residents.
  • Method: county adult population multiplied by adult smartphone ownership rates observed in ACS/Pew (high-80s to low-90s percent), plus most teens 13–17.
• Households with smartphones: very high (around 9 in 10), broadly similar to Texas overall, but with a higher share of “smartphone-only” households (no fixed broadband) than the state average.

What stands out versus Texas overall

• Higher smartphone-only reliance: A larger share of El Paso households rely on mobile data as their primary or only internet connection than the Texas average (driven by income, apartment/rental mix, and bilingual households).
• More cross‑border usage: A markedly higher share of users select plans with Mexico roaming/calling and cross-border data features, reflecting daily/weekly travel and family ties with Ciudad Juárez.
• Market skews more value/prepaid: Greater presence and use of prepaid/MVNO brands (e.g., Metro by T‑Mobile, Cricket, Boost) than the Texas average, consistent with price sensitivity and cross‑border needs.
• ACP sunset hits harder: El Paso’s enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) was above the state average; the program’s lapse in 2024–2025 likely pushed more households toward mobile-only access or lower-cost prepaid options than in many Texas metros.
• Border-spectrum constraints: Cross-border frequency coordination can limit low‑band power/availability compared to interior Texas, shaping how carriers deploy coverage along the river, ports of entry, and near the Franklin Mountains.

Demographic breakdown and behavioral notes

• Ethnicity and language: The county is predominantly Hispanic/Latino (>80%). Spanish-English bilingual usage is common; WhatsApp, Messenger, and cross‑border calling features see above-average adoption relative to Texas.
• Age: Slightly younger age profile than the Texas median supports high smartphone penetration and heavy messaging/social/video use; seniors still trail younger cohorts in smartphone adoption, but family-centered apps (e.g., WhatsApp) help close gaps.
• Income and education: Lower median household income than Texas overall correlates with:
  • Higher smartphone-only households.
  • Greater prepaid/MVNO uptake and plan-switching to manage costs.
  • Shared-family plans and device financing through value retailers.
• Military presence: Fort Bliss drives strong device penetration among adults 18–34, frequent device upgrades, and demand for robust coverage on/near the installation.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage and 5G:
  • 4G LTE is extensive countywide along the I‑10 corridor, the Lower Valley, and population centers (El Paso, Socorro, San Elizario, Horizon City).
  • Mid-band 5G (T‑Mobile 2.5 GHz; AT&T/Verizon C‑band) is broadly available in the urban core and along major corridors; speeds taper at the desert edges and in mountain shadow zones.
  • Terrain effects: The Franklin Mountains create localized dead zones and require additional sites or careful antenna placement (not a typical issue in many Texas metros).
  • Border coordination: Power/usage limits on some bands near the international boundary can reduce low‑band reach compared with interior counties.
• Capacity hotspots: Downtown, UTEP, Fort Bliss, shopping corridors, and bridges/ports of entry see dense macro/small cell deployments to handle peaks from commuters, military, and cross‑border traffic.
• Rural fringes: East/southeast desert and agricultural areas (e.g., far Horizon/Montana Vista periphery) have adequate baseline coverage but lower median speeds and fewer redundant sites than the urban core.
• Backhaul and resilience: Major fiber backbones track I‑10 and urban arterials; fiber-fed macro sites in the core support higher 5G capacity than fringe sites. Public-safety networks (e.g., FirstNet) are prominent given military and border operations.
• Public access and devices: Libraries, schools, and community centers have been important for device charging/Wi‑Fi; post‑ACP, schools’ hotspot lending and nonprofit device programs play an outsized role compared with many Texas counties.

Quantified differences to watch

• Smartphone-only households: Expect El Paso County to sit several percentage points above the Texas average for households depending solely on cellular data for internet.
• Fixed broadband adoption: Below Texas average; mobile networks carry a larger share of home internet usage here than in most large Texas metros.
• Prepaid/MVNO share: Higher than state average; plan selection disproportionately includes Mexico roaming.
• Post‑ACP trend: Elevated risk of churn from home broadband to mobile-only, amplifying mobile data traffic growth.

Notes on method and sources

• Estimates triangulated from: U.S. Census Bureau ACS (S2801/S2802—device and internet subscription by household), Texas Demographic Center/ACS population and age structure, Pew Research (smartphone adoption by age/income/ethnicity), FCC National Broadband Map (mobile coverage), and carrier public 5G deployment materials. County-specific mobile-only reliance is inferred from ACS patterns and known border economics; figures are expressed as ranges to reflect uncertainty and recent program changes (ACP).

El Paso County, TX social media snapshot (2025)

Topline user stats

• Population: ~875,000. Estimated 13+ population: ~740,000.
• Estimated social media users: ~600,000–650,000 (≈69–74% of total population; ≈80–87% of 13+). Point estimate ≈630,000.
• Language: High bilinguality; roughly two-thirds of households speak Spanish at home, so Spanish/English content both perform well.

Most-used platforms (share of 13+ who use each platform; users are multi-platform)

• YouTube: ~85%
• Facebook: ~65%
• Instagram: ~52%
• WhatsApp: ~45% (notably above U.S. average due to cross‑border/family ties)
• TikTok: ~40%
• Snapchat: ~35%
• Pinterest: ~32%
• LinkedIn: ~24%
• X (Twitter): ~20%
• Reddit: ~18%
• Nextdoor: ~15%

Age mix and skews

• Share of county social media users by age: 13–17: ~10%; 18–24: ~16%; 25–34: ~24%; 35–44: ~18%; 45–64: ~22%; 65+: ~10%.
• Platform skews:
  • 13–24: Heavily YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook used but not primary.
  • 25–34: YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp; rising TikTok.
  • 35–54: Facebook and YouTube dominate; WhatsApp common; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing but secondary.
  • 55+: Facebook and YouTube lead; WhatsApp usage present for family comms.

Gender breakdown (approximate within-platform tilt)

• Overall user base: ~51% women, ~49% men.
• Skews: Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest skew female (e.g., Instagram ~55% women); TikTok and Snapchat slightly female; YouTube, Reddit, X skew male (Reddit and X ~60–70% men). WhatsApp is roughly balanced.

Notable behavioral trends

• Cross‑border communications: Very high WhatsApp usage for family, school, and community groups spanning El Paso–Ciudad Juárez; frequent sharing of local news and border wait-times.
• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups and Marketplace are major hubs (neighborhoods, buy/sell, lost-and-found, school/parent groups). Nextdoor used for hyperlocal issues.
• Video-forward consumption: Short‑form video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives discovery for food, events, and small businesses; YouTube for how‑tos and Spanish-language news.
• Bilingual content wins: Posts with clear visuals, captions, or bilingual copy outperform; local news outlets’ English/Spanish pages see strong engagement.
• Institutions shaping content: Fort Bliss and UTEP increase activity around housing, jobs, campus/military life, events, and sports.
• Peak activity: Mobile-first usage with peaks evenings (≈7–10pm) and midday breaks; weekend spikes for events, dining, and shopping.
• Private-by-default sharing: Many users browse publicly but share in private WhatsApp chats or closed Facebook Groups, so link clicks and shares may outpace public comments.

How these figures were derived

• Population and age mix from U.S. Census/ACS for El Paso County (latest available).
• Platform percentages adapted from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media use benchmarks and U.S. teen use data, then adjusted for El Paso’s younger, majority‑Hispanic profile (which elevates WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat) and for local behaviors observed in border communities.
• Treat platform percentages as directional estimates for planning, not exact counts. For campaigns, validate with current ad-platform audience tools (Meta, TikTok, YouTube) filtered to El Paso County.