Fisher County

Here are key demographics for Fisher County, Texas, using the latest U.S. Census Bureau data (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 ACS 5-year; 2023 Population Estimates). Figures rounded.

Population

• Total: ~3,6xx (2023 est.); 3,672 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~45 years
• Under 18: ~23%
• 65 and over: ~25%

Gender

• Female: ~48–49%
• Male: ~51–52%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~88–90%
• Black/African American alone: ~2–4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Two or more races: ~4–7%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~27–32%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~63–67%

Households and housing

• Households: ~1,550–1,600
• Persons per household: ~2.3
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–80%
• Family households: ~60–65% of households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates Program 2023; American Community Survey 2019–2023; 2020 Census).

Fisher County, TX snapshot (estimates; based on 2020 Census, ACS, and rural TX adoption patterns):

• Population/density: 3,700 residents over ~900 sq mi (4 people/sq mi). Largest towns: Rotan and Roby.
• Email user count: ~2,500–3,000 residents use email at least monthly (≈70–80% of all residents; ≈80–90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–34: ~500–600 (near‑universal adoption).
  • 35–54: ~650–750 (very high).
  • 55–64: ~300–400 (moderate‑high).
  • 65+: ~400–550 (lower but rising).
• Gender split: Roughly even (≈49–51% each); email adoption similar across genders.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household internet subscriptions: ~65–75%; 15–25% are smartphone‑only.
  • Fixed broadband strongest in town centers; many outlying areas rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite; fiber is limited.
  • Mobile coverage is best along US‑180/TX‑70 corridors; gaps persist on ranchlands, affecting always‑on email.
  • Public/anchor access (schools, libraries in Roby/Rotan, municipal Wi‑Fi) supplements home access.
• Connectivity implications: Lower density and longer last‑mile loops suppress speeds and adoption; satellite and 5G fixed wireless are growing options to close gaps.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Fisher County, Texas (small, rural, West Texas)

Top-line estimates

• Population base: roughly 3,700–4,000 residents; about 2,800–3,100 adults.
• Smartphone users: approximately 2,100–2,500 adults (about 70–80% of adults; lower than Texas overall).
• Any mobile phone (smartphone or basic): roughly 2,400–2,800 adults (about 80–90%).
• Smartphone-only internet households: about 300–450 households (roughly 20–30% of households), higher than the statewide share.

How Fisher County differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone adoption, but higher smartphone dependence: Fewer adults own smartphones than the Texas average, yet a larger share of households rely on phones as their only internet connection due to limited wired broadband options.
• Coverage quality over cutting-edge speed: 4G/LTE remains the workhorse; 5G is present mainly as low-band with modest speed gains. Texas metros see broader mid-band 5G and higher average speeds.
• Android and prepaid lean: Android share and prepaid/MVNO usage are likely higher than in urban Texas, reflecting price sensitivity and patchier Apple retail/service access.
• More external gear: In-home boosters, external antennas, and Wi‑Fi calling are notably more common than statewide to overcome weak indoor signals.
• Usage skew: Heavier use of voice/SMS, weather, ag, and mapping apps; lower adoption of data-heavy apps compared with metro Texas.

Demographic context and what it implies

• Age: Older-than-state profile (larger 55+ and 65+ share). This reduces overall smartphone penetration and increases the share of basic/feature phones and voice-first usage.
• Income and education: Median household income and bachelor’s attainment are below state averages. This correlates with higher prepaid, MVNO, and budget Android device use, and with sharing devices within households.
• Race/ethnicity: Majority non-Hispanic White with a substantial Hispanic population. Expect bilingual usage, strong use of WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger, and family remittance/banking apps.
• Housing/settlement: Dispersed ranchland and small towns (Rotan, Roby). Distance from towers leads to variable indoor coverage, encouraging Wi‑Fi calling and fixed wireless substitutes.

Estimated carrier reach and usage patterns

• Carriers: AT&T and Verizon generally provide the most consistent rural coverage; T‑Mobile’s coverage is improving along primary corridors but is more variable off-highway. MVNOs that ride these networks are common for cost savings.
• Network tech:
  • 4G/LTE is the primary layer countywide.
  • 5G low-band is available along major roads and in/near population centers; mid-band 5G is spotty to limited.
  • Typical user speeds: LTE 5–25 Mbps in-town, single-digit Mbps in fringe areas; 5G low-band can reach 20–80 Mbps where signal is strong.
• Devices and plans:
  • Higher share of budget Android devices; iPhone share lower than state urban areas.
  • Prepaid unlimited plans and hotspot add-ons are popular; data-capping and throttling more visible in daily use.
  • Signal boosters and directional antennas are a frequent accessory for homesteads.

Digital infrastructure notes

• Macro-tower grid is sparse, with sites clustered near Rotan and Roby and along State Highway 70 and US 180; coverage drops in low-lying or shielded areas between corridors.
• Backhaul is a mix of microwave and fiber; fiber is most common along highway rights-of-way. Microwave-fed sites can see congestion during peak hours.
• Fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps:
  • Multiple WISPs serve outlying areas; performance varies by line-of-sight and distance to tower.
  • Starlink adoption is noticeable among ranches and edge-of-grid homes; often paired with Wi‑Fi calling for reliable voice.
• Public facilities: Schools, the hospital/clinics, and libraries typically provide Wi‑Fi that backstops spotty mobile data for students and seniors.
• Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T) coverage focuses on town centers and corridors; responders often rely on vehicle boosters in fringe areas.

Behavioral/usage specifics shaped by local economy

• Agriculture, energy, and wind sectors drive usage of weather, GPS/mapping, two-way/PoC apps, and equipment telematics; many users keep voice/SMS as the fail-safe.
• Commuting to nearby employment hubs increases daytime load along corridors; off-peak areas may have weak or no signal.

What these differences mean for planning and service

• Expect higher churn between prepaid MVNOs and carriers based on seasonal coverage and promotions.
• Investments with the most immediate user impact: additional macro sites or sectorization along SH 70/US 180, fiber backhaul upgrades to existing towers, and more mid-band 5G to raise capacity.
• Consumer guidance that resonates locally: recommend Wi‑Fi calling, boosters for fringe homes, fixed wireless/satellite for primary data, and carrier trials before switching.

Sources and methods

• Estimates triangulated from: U.S. Census/ACS county demographics; Pew Research on smartphone adoption and rural gaps; FCC broadband and mobile coverage maps; carrier public coverage maps and rural deployment patterns in West Texas. Figures are presented as ranges to reflect small-population uncertainty and rapidly changing rural network buildouts.

Here’s a concise, data‑informed snapshot. Because platform-by-platform stats aren’t published for Fisher County specifically, figures below are estimates built by applying recent Pew Research Center social media rates for rural U.S. adults to Fisher County’s population (≈3,700; ≈2,900 adults). Treat them as directional, not exact.

Overall use

• Adult social media penetration (any platform, incl. YouTube): about 78–82%
• Estimated adult users: roughly 2,200–2,400 people
• Device: overwhelmingly mobile-first; multi-platform use is common (so platform percentages sum to >100)

Most‑used platforms (share of county adults; estimates)

• YouTube: ~81%
• Facebook: ~69%
• Instagram: ~39%
• TikTok: ~29%
• Snapchat: ~23%
• Pinterest: ~31%
• WhatsApp: ~20%
• X (Twitter): ~20%
• LinkedIn: ~20%
• Reddit: ~15%
• Nextdoor: ~12%

Age pattern (share using any social platform; estimates)

• 18–29: ~90–95%
• 30–49: ~85–90%
• 50–64: ~70–75%
• 65+: ~45–55% Platform skews by age:
• 18–29: heavy on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook primarily for family/school updates
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube core; Instagram growing; TikTok moderate
• 50–64: Facebook + YouTube dominant; Pinterest notable
• 65+: Facebook leading; YouTube for news/how‑to; lower use elsewhere

Gender breakdown (among social media users; estimates)

• Overall users: roughly even male/female (tracking county demographics)
• Platform skews: Pinterest and Instagram lean female; YouTube, Reddit, and X lean male; Facebook relatively balanced; TikTok leans female

Behavioral trends to expect locally

• Community-first Facebook use: local groups, school sports, churches, city/county updates, lost‑and‑found, event notices; Facebook Marketplace is a major buy/sell channel
• Information needs: weather alerts (storms, heat, wind), road conditions, utility outages—fastest spread via Facebook Groups and shares
• Commerce and discovery: residents find local services and small businesses through Facebook Pages/Groups and Instagram; short video (Reels/TikTok) boosts reach for boutiques, food trucks, home services
• Messaging over posting (younger users): Snapchat/Instagram DMs for daily communication; public posting less frequent
• Content formats: short videos and photo carousels of community events perform best; practical “how‑to” and DIY (YouTube) strong, including ranching, equipment, home repair
• Timing: engagement clusters early morning, lunch, and evenings; weekend spikes around games, church, and community events
• Language/culture: where Spanish-speaking households are present, WhatsApp and Facebook Groups facilitate family and church/community coordination

Notes on method

• Figures are extrapolated from Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption (rural/small-town cuts) applied to Fisher County’s adult population. For precise, local counts, consider a short resident survey and/or platform ad‑tool audience estimates filtered to Fisher County.