Franklin County

To ensure accuracy: do you want the latest Census estimates (ACS 2019–2023 5-year) or the 2020 Decennial Census counts? I can provide population, age distribution, sex, race/ethnicity, and household metrics for your preferred source/year.

Franklin County, TX snapshot: pop ≈10.6k, area ≈295 sq mi, density ≈36/sq mi, ≈4.1k households.

Estimated email users

• 8,000–9,000 residents (≈85–90% of residents age 13+); 7,500–8,500 adults.

Age distribution (estimated adoption)

• 18–29: ≈95%
• 30–49: ≈96%
• 50–64: ≈90%
• 65+: ≈80–85%

Gender split

• Usage is roughly even (male ≈ female), with differences typically under 2–3%.

Digital access trends

• Home broadband subscriptions likely 75–85% of households; 10–15% are smartphone‑only internet users.
• Mobile email use rising; older‑adult adoption trending upward.
• Public Wi‑Fi (library/schools) supplements access for smartphone‑only and unserved homes.

Local density/connectivity facts

• Low population density increases last‑mile costs; connectivity is strongest along the I‑30 corridor and in/near Mount Vernon.
• Outlying farm and lake areas (e.g., around Lake Cypress Springs) more often rely on fixed‑wireless or satellite when cable/fiber isn’t present.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from 2020 census population and typical Texas/rural U.S. internet and email adoption benchmarks; neighborhood‑level availability varies by provider footprint.

Below is a practical, county-focused snapshot built from recent ACS demographics, rural Texas adoption patterns, and statewide benchmarks. Figures are estimates and intended as directional; they highlight how Franklin County differs from Texas overall.

Topline

• Context: Small, rural county in Northeast Texas centered on Mount Vernon along I‑30; older population and lower household income than the Texas average.
• Big picture: Mobile adoption is high but a bit below the Texas average. Reliance on mobile as a primary internet connection is meaningfully higher than statewide, and 5G capacity is concentrated along the interstate and town centers.

User estimates (2025)

• Population and base: ~11,000 residents; ~8,600 adults (18+); ~4,200 households.
• Unique mobile phone users (age 13+): roughly 8,300–9,000.
• Adult smartphone users (18+): roughly 7,100–7,400 (≈83–86% of adults; Texas ≈high‑80s to ~90%).
• Households with at least one smartphone: ≈88–92% (Texas slightly higher).
• Mobile‑only internet households (no wired broadband at home, rely on cellular data): ≈19–22% of households (Texas ≈14–16%).
• Typical data plans: higher share of prepaid and budget plans than the state average; device replacement cycles tend to be longer.

Demographic usage patterns

• Age
  • 18–34: near-saturation smartphone use; heavy reliance on mobile for entertainment, work, and hotspotting where home broadband is weak.
  • 35–54: very high adoption; frequent hotspot use for school/work when wireline is unavailable or unreliable.
  • 55–64: high but slightly lower adoption than younger groups; more conservative data usage.
  • 65+: noticeably lower adoption (roughly 60–70% with smartphones), more voice/text-centric usage; larger share on basic or low-cost plans.
• Income and plan type
  • Lower-income households are more likely to be mobile-only for home internet and to use prepaid plans.
  • End of federal ACP subsidies has increased price sensitivity; expect some downgrades to smaller data buckets and slower upgrade cycles.
• Language/ethnicity
  • Hispanic households (a smaller share than Texas overall) show above-average mobile-only reliance when wireline options are limited, mirroring rural Texas trends.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern
  • Stronger LTE/5G coverage along I‑30 and within/near Mount Vernon; coverage becomes patchier on rural roads and low-density areas south toward lake communities and north of the interstate.
  • Metal-roof homes and piney-woods terrain can reduce indoor signal quality; Wi‑Fi calling is commonly used.
• 5G profile
  • Broad low-band 5G is present; mid-band 5G capacity (faster speeds) is mostly tied to highway/town corridors. Outside those areas, LTE or low-band 5G often carries the load.
• Capacity/backhaul
  • Fiber backhaul is concentrated along the interstate and civic anchors; elsewhere, sectors depend more on microwave backhaul, which can constrain peak speeds.
• Competing options
  • Fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps where DSL/cable don’t reach; this contributes to the higher mobile-only share.
• Resiliency
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than urban Texas; single-site outages have outsized local impact until backhaul or power is restored.

How Franklin County differs from Texas overall

• Slightly lower adult smartphone adoption than the Texas average, driven by an older age mix.
• Significantly higher reliance on mobile-only internet for home connectivity.
• Higher prevalence of prepaid/budget plans and longer device replacement cycles.
• 5G capacity is less ubiquitous; mid-band 5G is mainly a corridor/center-town phenomenon rather than countywide.
• Greater performance variability between highway/town areas and outlying rural pockets (statewide networks are more consistently dense).
• Indoor coverage challenges are more common (metal roofs, distance to towers), increasing dependence on Wi‑Fi calling and external antennas.

What to watch (near-term trends)

• BEAD- and state-funded fiber builds to unserved areas could reduce mobile-only reliance over the next 2–3 years.
• Carrier mid-band 5G infill along county roads and lake-area sectors would materially improve capacity and indoor performance.
• Without ACP, expect continued pressure toward prepaid, smaller data plans, and shared family lines.

Method notes

• Estimates triangulate ACS demographics for small rural Texas counties, known statewide smartphone adoption ranges, and FCC/RDOF/BEAD deployment patterns for rural infrastructure. Where county-specific measurements are lacking, values are expressed as ranges and should be treated as directional rather than exact.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot. County-level social media metrics aren’t officially published; figures use Texas/rural-U.S. benchmarks (Pew and other industry sources) adjusted to Franklin County’s rural profile. Treat percentages as estimates.

Estimated overall reach (adults 18+)

• Use of at least one social platform: roughly 75–80% of adults
• Primary device: mobile-first; video short-form dominant

Most-used platforms (share of adult residents)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~65–75% (Groups and Marketplace are core)
• Instagram: ~35–45%
• TikTok: ~25–35%
• Snapchat: ~20–30% (skews teens/20s)
• Pinterest: ~25–35% (strong female skew)
• X (Twitter): ~15–20% (news/sports watchers)
• LinkedIn: ~10–15% (professionals/commuters)
• WhatsApp: ~10–15% overall, higher among Hispanic residents
• Nextdoor: <10% (coverage varies by neighborhood density)

Age-pattern highlights

• Teens (13–17): YouTube and TikTok dominate; Snapchat for daily messaging; Instagram for peers/sports. Facebook used mainly for teams/clubs via parents.
• 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat heavy; YouTube for entertainment/how-tos. Facebook used for local ties and Marketplace.
• 30–49: Facebook is the hub (Groups, Marketplace, school/church), YouTube for how-to/family content; Instagram for local boutiques/kids’ updates; rising TikTok/Reels consumption.
• 50+: Facebook and YouTube lead; Pinterest (home/crafts/recipes). Lower use of TikTok/Instagram, but Reels consumption via Facebook is growing.

Gender tendencies

• Women: higher Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest usage; strong engagement with local schools, churches, boutiques, health/wellness.
• Men: higher YouTube, X/Reddit; strong on outdoor, hunting/fishing, automotive, tools, local sports.

Behavioral trends specific to rural Northeast Texas

• Facebook Groups are the community backbone: buy/sell/trade, school boosters, youth sports, church and civic updates; Marketplace drives real, local intent (vehicles, equipment, home goods).
• Event-driven spikes: severe weather, school closings, Friday-night football, festivals, and fundraisers (FFA/4-H) spur rapid sharing.
• Video norms: short vertical clips (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) outperform; practical “how-to” and local faces build trust.
• Local trust: content from known residents, small-business owners, churches, and school accounts outperforms brand-first messages.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is default; some families use WhatsApp (especially bilingual/Hispanic households).
• Connectivity: patchy broadband means concise captions and sub-60s video help; schedule posts for early morning, lunch, and 7–10 p.m. prime time.

How to localize/verify quickly

• Check Meta Ads Manager, YouTube Reach Planner, TikTok/Snapchat ad tools for location reach in Franklin County; compare with follower counts on Mount Vernon ISD, city/county, and chamber pages to fine-tune creative and scheduling.