Glasscock County

Key demographics for Glasscock County, Texas (most recent Census/ACS):

Population

• Total: 1,116 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~32 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~33%
• 65 and over: ~9%

Gender

• Female: ~46%
• Male: ~54%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~93%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0–1%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~50%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~46%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Number of households: ~370
• Average household size: ~3.3 persons
• Family households: ~80% of households
• Married-couple households: ~70% of households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates). Figures are rounded.

Glasscock County, TX (pop. ~1,200; ~1–2 people/sq. mile) is very rural, so estimates use Census/ACS population and national/rural email and internet adoption benchmarks.

Estimated email users

• Total users: ~850–900 residents
  • Adults (18+): ~800–850
  • Teens (13–17): ~40–60

Age distribution of email users (approx.)

• 18–34: 25% of users (~210–230)
• 35–64: 55% of users (~460–500)
• 65+: 20% of users (~130–160)

Gender split

• Slight male majority locally (oilfield workforce); email usage roughly even: ~51% male, 49% female among users.

Digital access trends

• Household broadband subscription: roughly 70–80% (lower than urban Texas); a notable share is mobile-only (≈10–15%) or satellite in outlying ranch areas.
• Growing availability of fixed wireless and some fiber near Garden City; provider choice remains limited outside the town.
• Smartphone dependence is high; seniors’ email adoption lags but is rising as telehealth and banking move online.

Local connectivity/density facts

• Sparse settlement and long last-mile runs constrain wired buildouts; cellular coverage is strongest along TX-158/TX-137, patchier on remote roads.
• Email remains ubiquitous for school, oilfield contracting, government services, and healthcare portals despite rural infrastructure constraints.

Below is a best-effort snapshot of mobile phone usage in Glasscock County, Texas, tailored to how it differs from statewide patterns. Because granular carrier and usage data aren’t formally published at this scale, figures are reasoned estimates triangulated from the 2020 Census/ACS, FCC/National Broadband Map mobile availability layers, and Texas-wide adoption benchmarks.

Quick county profile

• Population: roughly 1.1K–1.3K residents; very low density, oil-and-gas oriented, with Garden City as the hub.
• Daytime presence swells with non-resident oilfield workers and service crews, which materially affects network load despite the small resident base.

User estimates

• Mobile users (people, not lines): about 800–950 residents regularly using a mobile phone.
  • Adults (18+): ~700–830 users (roughly 88–92% penetration among adults, slightly below or on par with Texas overall).
  • Teens (13–17): ~70–100 additional users (high adoption among school-age youth).
• Smartphones: 85–90% of mobile users (a bit below large metros, but not dramatically).
• Active lines in use (including work phones, hotspots, tablets, IoT): about 1,500–1,900 lines. Lines per person trend higher than the state average due to employer-issued devices and hotspots used for home/work connectivity.
• Mobile-only internet households: estimated 22–35% (noticeably higher than the Texas average), reflecting limited fixed broadband options and the prevalence of mobile hotspots for home connectivity.
• Prepaid share: estimated 25–35% of consumer lines (above Texas average), driven by a mix of cost control preferences, temporary/itinerant workers, and coverage experimentation across carriers.

Demographic factors that shape usage

• Age structure: younger families and a working-age skew tied to oilfield employment. This supports high smartphone and hotspot use for shift work coordination and field apps.
• Hispanic/Latino population: roughly half of residents (order of magnitude). This tends to raise demand for bilingual customer support, family plans, and app ecosystems with strong cross-border messaging (e.g., WhatsApp), relative to some non-Hispanic rural areas.
• Workforce pattern: a large share in energy, construction, and services leads to:
  • More employer-provided lines and rugged devices.
  • Heavy daytime and corridor-concentrated traffic, with sharp peaks around shift changes.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers present: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile macro coverage; regional roaming fills gaps. Coverage is road-centric, strongest along the State Highway 137 and 158 corridors and near work sites; it thins quickly off-pavement.
• 4G LTE: broadly available outdoors on main routes; indoor coverage is inconsistent in metal buildings common to oilfield operations.
• 5G: primarily low-band for wide-area coverage; mid-band 5G capacity (the fast stuff) is patchier than in Texas metros and often confined to fringes influenced by nearby larger markets. Practical speeds often resemble strong LTE outside the few mid-band footprints.
• Backhaul: fiber is present along select corridors and energy infrastructure, but many towers rely on microwave hops; this constrains peak capacity and makes performance more variable than in urban Texas.
• Site spacing: macro towers are widely spaced, prioritizing coverage over capacity. Portable hotspots and signal boosters are common workarounds for homes, work yards, and vehicles.

How Glasscock County differs from Texas statewide

• Higher reliance on mobile as primary internet: A much larger share of households run on cellular-only connectivity and mobile hotspots due to sparse fixed broadband.
• More lines per capita: Employer-issued phones, hotspots, and tablets push per-resident line counts above state norms.
• Coverage quality is more variable: Outdoor road coverage is decent; indoor and off-road coverage is less reliable than the state average, with bigger gaps between towers.
• Capacity favors coverage: Low-band LTE/5G dominates; mid-band 5G capacity layers are limited compared with urban/suburban Texas, so median speeds and busy-hour performance lag.
• Usage peaks are tied to energy operations: Network load surges around shift changes and in clustered work zones—patterns less pronounced statewide.
• Slightly higher prepaid share and plan-churn: Reflects temporary/itinerant workers and coverage testing across carriers uncommon in most Texas metros.

Note: County-level social media data isn’t directly published. Figures below are directional estimates based on rural Texas patterns and recent U.S. platform usage (Pew, 2023–2024), scaled to Glasscock County’s size. Use as a planning guide rather than exact counts.

Quick context

• Population: roughly 1.1–1.3k residents; ~900–1,000 are 13+.
• Connectivity: majority are smartphone-first; home broadband is patchier than mobile data.

Estimated user base

• Social media users: ~65–75% of all residents; ~80–90% of residents age 13+.
• Weekly active users: ~55–65% of residents.

Most‑used platforms (share of residents 13+)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 70–80% (heavy use of Groups/Pages)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• TikTok: 30–40%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (concentrated in teens/20s)
• WhatsApp: 15–25% (higher in Spanish‑speaking households)
• X (Twitter): 8–12%
• Reddit: 10–15% (mostly lurkers)
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited relevance without a large town)

Age group usage (share using any platform weekly; top platforms in each)

• 13–17: 90–95%. Top: YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; some Facebook for school updates.
• 18–29: 95%+. Top: YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook for events/jobs.
• 30–49: 85–90%. Top: Facebook, YouTube; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing.
• 50–64: 70–75%. Top: Facebook, YouTube; lighter Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: 45–55%. Top: Facebook, YouTube.

Gender breakdown (approximate among users)

• Overall users: ~50% female / ~50% male.
• Platform skews: Facebook and Instagram lean slightly female; TikTok and Snapchat lean female in younger cohorts; YouTube roughly even; X leans male.

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community hub: school district updates, church news, local sports, buy/sell/trade, emergency/weather notices, county/volunteer fire info.
• Short‑form video consumption is high in evenings (TikTok/Reels/YouTube Shorts); local creation is modest but engagement spikes around school sports, hunting season, storms, road closures.
• Messaging for coordination: Messenger and WhatsApp used for family, church groups, work crews (oilfield).
• Cross‑county follow: many residents also follow Midland–Odessa and San Angelo pages for news, jobs, and shopping.
• Posting/engagement peaks: early morning (6–7:30a), lunch (12–1p), evenings (7–10p CT); weekends for events.
• Content preferences: practical/how‑to, hyperlocal news, school sports highlights, community events, bilingual (EN/ES) posts perform best.
• Advertising note: boosted Facebook posts and Group shares drive outsized reach; radius targeting often needs to include nearby metros due to small audience size.