Erath County

Key demographics: Erath County, Texas

• Population

  • 2023 estimate: ~44,500
  • 2020 Census: 42,545

• Age distribution (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 18–24: ~18%
  • 25–44: ~27%
  • 45–64: ~21%
  • 65 and over: ~14%

• Sex (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Female: ~51%
  • Male: ~49%

• Race/ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; Hispanic may be of any race)

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~62%
  • Hispanic/Latino: ~28–29%
  • Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~4–5%
  • Other: ~1%

• Households (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Total households: ~16,500–17,000
  • Average household size: ~2.6
  • Family households: ~63% of households (married-couple ~45–50%)
  • Nonfamily households: ~37%
  • Tenure: ~60–62% owner-occupied; ~38–40% renter-occupied
  • Households with children under 18: ~28–30%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101) and 2023 Vintage Population Estimates.

Erath County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ≈43,000 residents; adults ≈34,000.
• Email users: ≈30,000–33,000 residents use email regularly (about 88–94% of adults; near-universal among college-age).
• Age profile (share using email):
  • 18–29: 95–99%
  • 30–49: 95–98%
  • 50–64: 88–93%
  • 65+: 75–85%
• Gender split: Essentially even (≈50/50), with negligible usage difference by sex.
• Digital access trends:
  • Internet subscription: ~86–90% of households; fixed broadband ~78–85%.
  • Smartphone-only internet: ~10–14% of households.
  • No home internet: ~8–12%, concentrated in rural areas and some low-income seniors.
  • Growth in fixed wireless and fiber around Stephenville; rural areas still rely on DSL, satellite, or fixed wireless.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Area ≈1,090 sq mi; population density ≈39/sq mi—rural spread raises last‑mile costs.
  • Stephenville (Tarleton State University) anchors higher-speed options and public Wi‑Fi; outlying areas face patchier 100/20 Mbps availability.

Notes: Figures are derived by applying recent Texas/Pew/ACS internet and email-adoption benchmarks to Erath County’s population; use as directional planning estimates.

Erath County, TX mobile phone usage – summary and how it differs from Texas overall

Quick context

• Population baseline: roughly 43,000 residents. The county is largely rural, anchored by Stephenville (Tarleton State University) and Dublin.
• Method note: The estimates below combine Census/ACS population structure with recent Pew Research smartphone ownership rates and typical rural adoption patterns in Texas. Figures are directional ranges, not carrier-reported counts.

User estimates

• Adult mobile users: about 31,000–33,000 adults with a mobile phone (≈95–98% of ~33k adults).
• Smartphone users (12+): roughly 31,000–32,000 people, reflecting high adult smartphone adoption (≈88–92%) plus very high teen adoption.
• Total mobile users (12+): on the order of 34,000–36,000.
• Mobile-only internet households: meaning a smartphone or hotspot is the primary home internet. Estimated 12–18% of ~16k households (about 2,000–2,900 households), higher than Texas statewide due to limited wired broadband off the main towns.
• Seasonal/temporal load: Noticeable spikes during Tarleton State’s academic year, move-in weeks, home football weekends, and county events; lighter loads in summer, unlike big-city commuter peaks seen in metro Texas.

Demographic and usage patterns

• Age/student effect: A large 18–24 population around Tarleton increases smartphone penetration, iOS share, and video/social app traffic compared with rural Texas norms. Outside Stephenville, older age structure and work-in-the-field patterns increase voice/SMS reliance and hotspot use.
• Rural vs. in-town split: In Stephenville/Dublin, 5G capacity and app usage resemble small metros; in the countryside, users lean on low-band coverage, voice, MMS, and hotspotting for homework, telehealth, and farm operations.
• Income/plan mix: Median household income trails the Texas average; prepaid and value brands (Cricket, Metro, Visible, Straight Talk, Boost) have a larger share than in Texas overall. Family plans and bring‑your‑own‑device are common.
• Language/culture: A sizable Hispanic community sustains heavy WhatsApp/Meta usage and international calling/text add‑ons; this mix is somewhat higher than the Texas rural average and closer to urban usage patterns in app choice.
• Work profile: Agriculture, small manufacturing, service/retail, and university employment shape usage: rugged devices, vehicle boosters, and PTT-like apps in the field; high-capacity data on/near campus.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage and 5G:
  • All three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) provide county coverage; strongest, most consistent capacity is in and around Stephenville and along US‑377/US‑67/TX‑6.
  • 5G low‑band blankets most of the populated areas; mid‑band 5G (T‑Mobile 2.5 GHz, Verizon C‑band, AT&T mid‑band where available) is concentrated in Stephenville and key corridors, thinning rapidly in rural stretches.
  • Practical implication: Town users see metro‑like 5G performance; many rural users experience LTE/5G low‑band speeds and higher variability, especially indoors or in hilly/wooded areas of the Cross Timbers.
• Sites and capacity:
  • Dozens of macro towers, often co‑located among carriers, anchor coverage; small cells are limited and mainly appear on/near campus or high‑traffic venues. Capacity upgrades in the last 2–3 years largely came from software/radio swaps to enable 5G rather than many new rural sites.
• Backhaul:
  • Fiber is strong in Stephenville and parts of Dublin; microwave backhaul is still common on rural sites. This constrains peak speeds and rapid scaling outside town compared with Texas metros where deep fiber is ubiquitous.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) presence improves emergency coverage; however, storm and power‑outage events can strain rural sites longer than in cities. Volunteer fire areas and low‑lying/wooded spots are more prone to brief dead zones.
• Home internet alternatives that shape mobile use:
  • Fixed wireless/5G home internet is meaningfully available in-town (e.g., T‑Mobile; selective Verizon), and regional WISPs (e.g., Nextlink, Rise) cover many rural households. Where fiber/cable are absent, households lean on smartphone hotspots or dedicated LTE/5G routers—raising mobile network load more than in Texas overall.

How Erath County differs from Texas statewide

• Higher reliance on mobile as primary internet: More mobile‑only or hotspot‑dependent households than the state average.
• More uneven 5G experience: Strong mid‑band 5G capacity in town but faster drop‑off to low‑band/LTE outside town than statewide averages, which are buoyed by metro coverage.
• Plan mix skews value: Prepaid/value brands and BYOD are more common; handset replacement cycles are a bit longer outside the student population.
• Student-driven peaks: Network demand patterns align with the university calendar and local events rather than big‑city commuter rushes seen in metro Texas.
• Backhaul constraints: Greater share of rural cell sites on microwave backhaul and fewer small cells than typical in Texas cities; this caps throughput and consistency at the county edges.
• Coverage gaps are more topography‑sensitive: Hills/trees along lesser roads create pockets of weaker indoor service, a smaller factor in flat, fiber‑rich metro counties.

What this means if you’re planning services or outreach

• Capacity planning should prioritize the Stephenville core, campus-adjacent housing, and event venues during term; plus targeted rural sectors where mobile is the home internet.
• Outreach and offers perform best via value/pricing messages in rural zones and premium‑device/student bundles in and near campus.
• To lift rural performance, carriers and partners get outsized returns from: adding fiber backhaul to existing macros, selective new sites along east‑west farm roads, and mid‑band 5G overlays on towers already serving multiple carriers.

Data confidence and sources

• Population and household structure: 2020 Census/ACS patterns scaled to current estimates.
• Ownership/adoption: Pew Research Center and common rural‑urban deltas in Texas.
• Coverage/infrastructure: FCC and carrier public maps plus regional deployment norms; no proprietary tower counts or drive‑test data were used.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate of social media usage in Erath County, TX. Exact county-level platform stats aren’t published; figures reflect national Pew Research and platform adoption norms adjusted for a rural Texas county with a sizable college presence (Tarleton State University).

Overall user stats

• Residents using at least one social platform: ~70–75%
• Daily users: ~60–65% of residents
• Heavy users (2+ hours/day): ~35–40% of users

Age groups (share using any social platform; platform highlights)

• 18–24 (large cohort due to Tarleton): 90–95%+
  • YouTube ~95% | Instagram 75–85% | Snapchat 70–80% | TikTok 65–80% | Facebook 50–60%
• 25–34: 85–90%
  • YouTube ~90% | Facebook ~70% | Instagram 55–65% | TikTok 45–55%
• 35–54: 75–85%
  • YouTube ~85% | Facebook 75–80% | Instagram 35–45% | TikTok 25–35% | Pinterest 40–50% (women)
• 55–64: 60–70%
  • Facebook 65–75% | YouTube 70–80% | Instagram 20–30% | TikTok 15–25%
• 65+: 40–50%
  • Facebook 50–60% | YouTube 55–65% | others <20%

Gender breakdown

• Overall users roughly even: women ~51–53%, men ~47–49%
• Women over-index on Facebook Groups/Marketplace, Instagram, Pinterest
• Men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X (Twitter); higher sports, DIY, ag/mechanics content consumption

Most-used platforms among adults (est.)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 70–75% (most daily)
• Instagram: 40–50%
• TikTok: 30–40% overall; 65–80% among 18–24
• Snapchat: 25–35% overall; 60–75% among 18–24
• Pinterest: 25–35% (women 40–55%)
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• LinkedIn: 15–25% (boosted by university/professional staff)
• Reddit: 15–20% (skews male/younger)
• WhatsApp: 15–25% (notably among bilingual/Hispanic households)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first on Facebook: heavy use of local Groups for buy/sell/trade, school and church updates, local sports, weather alerts, and city/county info; Marketplace is a primary classifieds channel.
• “College town effect”: Strong Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok use around Stephenville/Tarleton; event discovery and nightlife promos lean on Stories/Reels.
• Video-forward habits: YouTube for how‑to, ranching/AG, home/auto repair; short-form (Reels/TikTok) for entertainment, sports highlights, rodeo content.
• Messaging patterns: Facebook Messenger broadly used; Snapchat prevalent among students; WhatsApp common in Hispanic/bilingual networks and for family groups.
• Local news and emergencies: Facebook remains the default for breaking local updates (weather, closures, public safety); X is niche and more media/government-facing.
• Timing/seasonality: Engagement peaks evenings and weekends; spikes during severe weather, football/rodeo seasons, county fairs, and university semester milestones.
• Trust and conversion: Word-of-mouth dynamics—recommendation threads in Groups drive foot traffic; geo-targeted Facebook/Instagram ads with event tie-ins, promos, and clear CTAs perform best.

Note on methodology

• Estimates synthesized from Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption, rural vs. urban patterns, and county demographics (rural profile plus university skew). For precise campaign planning, validate with platform ad tools (geo-targeted reach) and local page/group analytics.