Fayette County

Here are key demographics for Fayette County, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates; rounded):

Population

• Total population: ~24,700

Age

• Median age: ~47 years
• Under 18: ~19%
• 18–64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Sex

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~63%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~24%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~7%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.4%
• Other/unspecified remainder: ~1%

Households

• Number of households: ~10,300
• Average household size: ~2.35
• Family households: ~64% of households
• Married-couple households: ~52%
• Households with children under 18: ~23%
• Nonfamily households: ~36%
• Living alone: ~31% (about ~15% age 65+)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

Fayette County, TX snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~25,000. Population density ~25–27 people/sq. mile; towns (La Grange, Schulenburg, Flatonia) are the main connectivity hubs; rural ranchland has sparser wired options.
• Email users: ~17,000–20,000 residents (about 70–80% of the population). Basis: most households report an internet subscription, and email remains near-universal among internet users.
• Age mix of email users (share of users):
  • 13–17: 6–8% (heavy school-driven accounts, lower daily use than adults)
  • 18–34: 18–22%
  • 35–64: 45–50% (largest cohort)
  • 65+: 22–27% (adoption slightly lower than younger adults)
• Gender split among users: roughly 51% female, 49% male (mirrors county demographics; no strong gender gap in email use).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet subscription roughly 80–85%, below Texas’s urban average but improving.
  • Growing mobile-dependence: ~10–15% of households are smartphone-only.
  • Best wired options cluster in town centers and along I‑10/US‑77/TX‑71; remote areas lean on fixed wireless or satellite.
  • Gaps persist among low-income and older residents; libraries and schools serve as important access points.

Note: Figures are derived from recent ACS/FCC patterns for rural Texas counties and national email-use norms, scaled to Fayette County’s size and age profile.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Fayette County, Texas skews older, more rural, and more infrastructure‑constrained than the Texas average. Adoption is high but not as universal as in metro areas; residents are more likely to lean on cellular for home internet, and performance varies sharply between highway corridors/towns and outlying ranchland.

User estimates (order‑of‑magnitude)

• Population and base: ~25,000 residents; ~20,000 adults; ~10,000 households.
• Smartphone users: 16,000–18,000 adult smartphone users (roughly 80–90% of adults, a few points below large‑metro Texas).
• Wireless‑only for voice: 60–65% of adults are likely wireless‑only (Texas statewide closer to mid‑70s).
• Mobile as primary home internet: 12–18% of households rely mainly on cellular hotspots or phone tethering for home access (statewide closer to single‑digits to low‑teens).
• Carrier mix: AT&T and Verizon tend to dominate away from towns and along I‑10/US‑77/SH‑71; T‑Mobile coverage is present and improving in towns/corridors but is less consistent in low‑density areas than in metros.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Older skew: A larger 65+ share than Texas overall. Estimated smartphone adoption among seniors ~70–80% (Texas seniors often closer to 80–85%). This softens countywide rates, keeps voice/SMS important, and lengthens device replacement cycles.
• Household makeup: More single‑line or two‑line households; fewer large family plans than urban Texas. Prepaid and MVNO usage are common among cost‑sensitive users, but many older users remain on postpaid with national carriers.
• Language/ethnicity: A sizable Hispanic population (roughly one‑fifth to one‑quarter) sustains bilingual app usage and messaging; WhatsApp and Facebook remain central communication tools.
• Work patterns: Agriculture, trades, logistics, and small retail/hospitality increase reliance on coverage along farm‑to‑market roads and at dispersed worksites; push‑to‑talk/FirstNet is relevant for public safety and some utilities.
• Education/telehealth: Schools and clinics report continued use of mobile access for homework and telehealth in households without fiber/cable, especially outside the towns.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage shape: Strongest on the main corridors (I‑10, SH‑71, US‑77) and in towns (La Grange, Schulenburg, Flatonia, Fayetteville, Round Top, Carmine). Coverage thins on ranchland and in rolling/wooded terrain; indoor signal can be weak in metal‑roof structures.
• 5G footprint:
  • Low‑band 5G: County‑wide or near‑county‑wide from major carriers; behaves like LTE with modest speed gains.
  • Mid‑band 5G (2.5 GHz for T‑Mobile; C‑band/DoD bands for AT&T/Verizon): Concentrated in and near towns and along highways. Off‑corridor areas often fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G.
  • mmWave: Not typical; may appear as spot coverage at high‑traffic venues, if at all.
• Capacity/backhaul: Sites on water towers/elevated tanks and along highways generally have fiber backhaul; many rural sites still depend on longer microwave hops. Congestion appears during events and in the evening video peak; upload speeds and latency degrade first.
• Event‑driven spikes: Round Top antiques shows and weekend tourism create recurring, predictable surges; temporary cells (COWs/COLTs) may be staged, but app performance still dips.
• Public safety: AT&T FirstNet is the default for many Texas agencies; coverage is solid along highways and in towns, with known gaps off‑corridor that agencies mitigate with boosters and LMR radio fallback.
• Alternatives to mobile: In‑town cable/fiber exists, and a local telco/ISP footprint (e.g., Colorado Valley Communications) and WISPs serve parts of the county; outside town limits many households still rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or cellular hotspots.
• User workarounds: Higher‑than‑average use of signal boosters, high‑gain antennas, and dedicated LTE/5G hotspots for home and farm operations.

How Fayette County trends differ from Texas overall

• Slightly lower smartphone adoption and slower device upgrade cycles due to older age structure.
• Higher share of households using mobile data as their primary internet because fixed fiber/cable is patchier than in metros and fast‑growing suburbs.
• More pronounced urban‑rural performance gap: highway/town sites perform well (100–300 Mbps on mid‑band 5G when available), but outlying areas often operate on LTE or low‑band 5G with variable speeds (roughly 5–60 Mbps) and higher latency.
• Carrier dynamics tilt toward AT&T/Verizon outside towns; statewide, T‑Mobile’s mid‑band 5G lead is more evident in metro/suburban areas than in Fayette’s backroads.
• Seasonal/event congestion is a bigger factor than in most counties, with noticeable slowdowns during antiques shows and holiday travel on I‑10/SH‑71.
• Voice/SMS and Facebook/WhatsApp remain proportionally more important; app ecosystems that assume ubiquitous high‑capacity 5G (e.g., live 4K video, cloud gaming) have spottier real‑world uptake.
• Greater reliance on hardware aids (boosters/antennas) and on public Wi‑Fi at libraries, schools, and cafes to fill coverage/performance gaps.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Figures are estimates synthesized from recent ACS population/age structure, statewide mobile adoption research (e.g., Pew, CDC wireless‑only trends), FCC coverage filings, carrier public maps, and typical rural Texas performance patterns. Exact coverage and speeds vary by micro‑location, building construction, and device. For planning, validate with local drive tests, crowd‑sourced speed data, and carrier RF planning teams.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot for Fayette County, TX. Exact county‑level platform data isn’t published, so figures are estimates derived from the county’s population profile, Pew Research’s 2023–2024 U.S. platform usage, and rural Texas patterns.

Population baseline

• Residents: ~26,000
• Adults (18+): ~20,000–21,000

Overall social media usage

• Adults using at least one platform: ~75–82% (≈15,000–17,000 people)

User mix (estimated)

• By age (share of local social users):
  • 18–29: 15–20%
  • 30–49: 30–35%
  • 50–64: 25–30%
  • 65+: 20–25%
• By gender (share of local social users):
  • Female: ~53–55%
  • Male: ~45–47%

Most‑used platforms among adults (share of all adults; rough counts in parentheses)

• YouTube: 75–80% (≈15k–17k)
• Facebook: 60–65% (≈12k–14k)
• Instagram: 35–40% (≈7k–8k)
• Pinterest: 30–35% (≈6k–7k; skews female)
• TikTok: 25–30% (≈5k–6k; skews under 35)
• Snapchat: 20–25% (≈4k–5k; concentrated under 30)
• X (Twitter): 15–20% (≈3k–4k; more male/interest‑driven)
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (≈3k–4k; professionals/commuters)
• WhatsApp: 12–18% (≈2.5k–3.5k; family, bilingual households)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (≈1k–2k; limited outside town centers)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: local news, schools/boosters, churches, civic updates, events, and heavy Marketplace use. Private groups and Messenger drive a large share of interactions.
• YouTube is utility‑driven: how‑to/DIY, equipment and home projects, hunting/fishing, local sermons/meetings, and music.
• Short‑form video is rising but age‑split: TikTok/Reels for teens/young adults; Facebook Reels for 35+.
• Posting windows with highest response: early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (noon–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–9 p.m. CT); weekends see strong Marketplace/event engagement.
• Creative preferences: hyper‑local references, recognizably local people/places, clear photos, short vertical video; bilingual (English/Spanish) helps reach more households.
• Trust dynamics: strongest engagement with known local voices—schools, churches, county/sheriff/emergency management, and small businesses. Overtly “outsider” or highly political messaging underperforms.
• Commerce: Facebook pages often substitute for standalone websites; Marketplace and Instagram drive boutique/food retail. DMs are a common path to purchase or booking.
• Connectivity: mobile‑first; assume variable broadband outside town limits—keep video short/compressed.

Notes and method

• Estimates reflect Fayette County’s size and older‑leaning age profile, adjusted by national platform penetration and rural usage skews. For precise figures, a short local survey or platform ad‑tool reach query is recommended.