Fannin County

To keep this accurate: do you want the latest American Community Survey 5-year estimates (ACS 2018–2022) or 2020 Decennial Census figures? I can deliver a concise bullet summary (population, age, sex, race/ethnicity, households) for your preferred source.

Fannin County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Population: 37,000; low density (40 people/sq. mi.), with residents spread across small towns and rural areas.
• Email users: ~26,000–29,000 residents use email at least monthly (derived from local internet adoption and typical U.S. email usage among internet users).
• Age mix of email users:
  • 13–17: 8% (2.3k)
  • 18–34: 23% (6.3k)
  • 35–64: 49% (13.6k)
  • 65+: 19% (5.3k)
• Gender split: approximately even overall; email adoption similar by gender. Note: a slight male skew in the county population is possible due to correctional facilities.
• Digital access trends:
  • About 80% of households have a home broadband subscription; roughly 15–20% lack home internet.
  • An estimated 10–12% are smartphone‑only for internet access.
  • Fixed broadband can be patchy outside town centers; mobile (4G/5G) often fills gaps along main corridors.
  • Public access points (libraries/schools in towns like Bonham) are important for residents without reliable home service.
• Connectivity context: Ongoing rural fiber builds (supported by recent state/federal programs) are targeting underserved areas, which should raise speeds and reduce smartphone‑only reliance over the next 1–3 years.

Figures are synthesized from recent ACS/FCC rural patterns applied to Fannin County’s demographics.

Below is a county-level snapshot based on public statistics (Census totals, Pew mobile adoption trends) and rural Texas infrastructure patterns. Figures are estimates; ranges reflect uncertainty at the county level.

Quick context

• Population: ≈37–38k residents (2023 est.), older and more rural than Texas overall.
• Settlement pattern: Small towns (Bonham, Leonard, Honey Grove, Trenton, Savoy, Ladonia) surrounded by farmland and new lake-area development (Bois d’Arc Lake).

User estimates

• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): ~29–32k residents. Method: adult cellphone ownership ≈93–95% applied to an adult population in the high-20k range, plus high teen ownership (13–17).
• Smartphone users: ~25–28k. Method: blend of near-universal use among under-55s and lower adoption among 65+.
• Mobile-only home internet: roughly 20–30% of households rely primarily on cellular/WISP instead of cable/fiber/DSL (higher than the Texas average).
• Prepaid/MVNO share: likely 35–45% of lines (above urban Texas), driven by price sensitivity and credit mix.

Demographic breakdown (directional)

• Age
  • 13–17: ~95% smartphone ownership; heavy social/video use; school connectivity matters.
  • 18–34: ≈97–99% smartphone; near-ubiquitous app and mobile banking use.
  • 35–54: ≈93–97% smartphone; strong work/personal use, hotspotting where home broadband is weak.
  • 55–64: ≈85–92% smartphone; some legacy LTE-only devices persist.
  • 65+: ≈70–80% smartphone; higher use of basic/flip phones than state average; voice/SMS more common.
• Income/education: Below Texas averages, contributing to longer device replacement cycles, more refurbished devices, and higher prepaid adoption.
• Language/ethnicity: Lower Hispanic share than Texas overall implies a smaller proportion of Spanish-first device settings and support needs.

Digital infrastructure notes

• Coverage
  • LTE is widespread in towns and along main corridors (US-82, TX-121, TX-78, US-69), with gaps in low-lying, wooded, and lake-adjacent areas and on lightly traveled farm roads.
  • 5G: Predominantly low-band coverage countywide; mid-band 5G (e.g., T-Mobile 2.5 GHz) is mainly in/near towns like Bonham/Leonard. C-band deployments by AT&T/Verizon are spottier than in metro Texas.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Typical rural speeds: LTE/low-band 5G in the 5–50 Mbps range, higher near towns; mid-band 5G pockets can deliver 100–300 Mbps where available.
  • Weekend/seasonal congestion near recreation areas (e.g., Bois d’Arc Lake) and event sites.
• First responder/public safety
  • AT&T FirstNet Band 14 sites improve rural reach; consumers nearby often benefit from those builds even on non‑FirstNet plans.
• Home broadband interplay
  • Cable/fiber availability is patchy outside town centers; many households use mobile hotspots or fixed wireless. Fiber expansion and rural grants are improving this, but FTTH penetration lags state averages.
  • T-Mobile/Verizon fixed wireless is available in select town and fringe areas; availability drops in deeper rural zones.

What’s different from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration and later upgrade cycles, driven by an older population and lower incomes.
• Heavier reliance on cellular or fixed wireless for home internet, because wireline options thin out quickly outside town limits.
• Higher prepaid/MVNO usage and refurbished device mix.
• Network experience skews more LTE/low-band 5G; mid-band 5G coverage and capacity trails the state’s metro corridors.
• More pronounced coverage variability (dead zones in bottoms/woods, lake perimeters) versus generally denser, more uniform urban coverage statewide.
• Lower demand for Spanish-first device settings and support compared to Texas as a whole.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Population base from recent Census estimates; ownership rates anchored to Pew Research national/rural splits and adjusted for the county’s older age structure.
• Carrier deployments vary by micro‑location and change rapidly; mid-band 5G and fiber footprints should be verified with current provider maps if planning investments or programs.

Below is a best-available snapshot using Pew Research Center’s 2024 social media benchmarks adjusted for rural Texas patterns and Fannin County’s older-leaning age mix. County-level platform data isn’t published, so treat figures as estimates (±3–5 percentage points).

Population baseline

• Adults (18+): roughly 29–30k residents
• Internet/smartphone access: high but not universal; expect slightly lower adoption than metro Texas

Estimated social media users (adults)

• Any social platform: ~85% of adults (about 24–26k people)

Most-used platforms (share of adults; rough counts in parentheses)

• YouTube: 78–82% (~22–24k)
• Facebook: 70–75% (~20–22k)
• Instagram: 32–38% (~9–11k)
• TikTok: 25–30% (~7–9k)
• Pinterest: 28–34% (~8–10k; skew female)
• Snapchat: 20–25% (~6–7k; strongest among teens/20s)
• X/Twitter: 15–20% (~4–6k)
• WhatsApp: 12–18% (~3–5k; higher in Hispanic households)
• LinkedIn: 12–16% (~3–5k; concentrated among professionals)
• Reddit: 10–14% (~3–4k)
• Nextdoor: 3–5% (~1–1.5k; Facebook Groups fill most “neighborhood” needs)

Age mix among users (adults)

• 18–29: ~20%
• 30–49: ~35–40%
• 50–64: ~22–26%
• 65+: ~16–20% Note: Teens (13–17) are heavy users of Snapchat/TikTok/YouTube; Facebook use is mainly for groups/parents/teams.

Gender breakdown

• Overall social users: roughly 52% women, 48% men
• Platform skews: Facebook and Pinterest skew female; YouTube, X, Reddit skew male; Instagram/TikTok close to even

Behavioral trends (local/rural patterns)

• Facebook = community backbone: school, church, youth sports, county and emergency updates, buy/sell/trade, lost/found pets. Marketplace and local Groups drive most engagement.
• Video habits: short clips (Reels/TikTok) for events and local happenings; YouTube for how‑to, outdoor, automotive/farm repair, and long-form.
• Trust and response: strong preference for local faces, known organizations, clear offers, and phone numbers. Word-of-mouth amplification via Groups.
• Timing: engagement peaks mornings (7–9 am), lunch, and evenings (7–10 pm); weekends perform well.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger dominates; SMS/iMessage common; WhatsApp niche but growing in bilingual households.
• Discovery: Limited hashtag use; geotags, cross-posting to relevant local Groups, school/booster pages, and community calendars work better.
• Content that performs: people-centric photos, youth sports highlights, community service, weather/road updates, event reminders, and practical tips.

Source/method note: Estimates derived from Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. social platform adoption, adjusted for rural users, plus U.S. Census ACS age/gender patterns for Fannin County. Actual local usage can vary; allow a few points of margin.