Goliad County

Which data vintage would you like? I can summarize from:

• 2020 Census (Decennial; precise headcount and race/ethnicity).
• ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates (most recent detailed estimates for age, gender, and households for small counties).

If no preference, I’ll use ACS 2018–2022 for age/household and 2020 Census for total population and race/ethnicity.

Goliad County snapshot (estimates; based on rural‑TX and U.S. benchmarks applied to a ~7–8k population):

• Estimated email users: 4,800–6,000 residents use email at least monthly.
• Age mix of email users: 13–17: 5–8%; 18–29: 15–18%; 30–49: 30–35%; 50–64: 25–28%; 65+: 15–20%. Adoption is near-universal among 30–64, slightly lower but rising among 65+ and teens.
• Gender split: roughly even (≈49–51% each); usage intensity similar across genders.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband adoption about 55–65% of households; 15–25% are mobile‑only internet users.
  • Fiber and cable concentrated in/near town centers; many outlying areas rely on fixed wireless or satellite.
  • Smartphone ownership is widespread, driving email access via mobile apps.
• Local density/connectivity context: Very low population density (roughly 8–10 residents per square mile across ~800–900 sq. mi.) increases last‑mile costs and leaves coverage gaps outside populated corridors; cellular service is strongest near the county seat and along major highways.

For precise figures, combine recent ACS, FCC Broadband Map, and local ISP build‑out data.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Goliad County, Texas

High-level picture

• Small, rural county with an older-than-average population and sparse settlement outside the county seat. Those factors drive slightly lower smartphone penetration than Texas overall, a higher share of “mobile-only” internet households, and more pronounced coverage/capacity gaps outside town centers.

User estimates (orders of magnitude; rounded)

• Population base: Roughly 7–8k residents; about 5.2–5.8k adults (18+). Source basis: 2020 Census/ACS trends for small rural Texas counties.
• Smartphone owners (adults): About 3.9–4.9k (≈75–85% of adults). This is 5–10 percentage points below typical Texas urban/suburban rates.
• Any mobile phone (including basic/feature phones): About 4.6–5.3k adults (≈85–92% of adults).
• Teen users (13–17): Likely 0.6–0.9k, with smartphone ownership in the 85–95% range, but overall numbers are small due to the county’s age structure.
• Mobile-only internet households: Noticeably higher than the Texas average. Expect something in the high teens to mid-20s percent of households versus roughly low-to-mid teens statewide, reflecting limited fixed-broadband options.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: The county skews older than Texas overall (Texas median age ~35; Goliad County is materially higher). Seniors (65+) are less likely to own smartphones and more likely to use basic phones or share devices; this pulls down countywide smartphone penetration relative to the state.
• Race/ethnicity: A substantial Hispanic population is present. Hispanic households in rural Texas counties are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to be mobile-only for home internet, driven by availability and cost of fixed service. That increases smartphone reliance for everyday tasks.
• Income: Median household income is below the Texas median. Lower-income residents show higher prepaid usage and plan churn, heavier reliance on mobile data, and greater sensitivity to the end of the federal ACP subsidy (which, when it lapsed, pushed some households toward mobile-only connectivity).
• Geography: In-town residents (near the county seat and along main corridors) see better signal quality and 5G availability; residents on ranchland or along river bottoms encounter more dead zones and lower throughput.

Digital infrastructure touchpoints

• Coverage and technology mix:
  • All three national carriers operate in the county. Low-band 5G and 4G LTE cover highways and the county seat reasonably well; coverage thins in sparsely populated areas.
  • Mid-band 5G capacity is limited and clustered near population centers; much of the county relies on LTE or low-band 5G with 4G-like speeds.
  • mmWave 5G is effectively absent.
• Capacity/performance:
  • Typical off-peak downloads in town are adequate for streaming and telehealth; upload speeds are modest and fall off quickly outside town.
  • Event-driven congestion and school-hour peaks can flatten speeds because there are few sectors per site and limited spectrum depth.
• Backhaul:
  • Fiber backhaul exists along primary corridors and in the county seat; many outlying sites still depend on microwave backhaul, raising latency and reducing consistency.
• Resilience:
  • Power and backhaul redundancy are uneven. Severe weather can cause localized mobile outages or degrade performance until commercial power is restored.
• Fixed-broadband interplay:
  • Outside the county seat, fiber-to-the-home is sparse, and cable is limited or absent; WISPs and DSL remnants fill gaps. Where fixed options are weak, households lean harder on mobile data.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet/AT&T coverage is present along major roads and the town center; portable solutions are still used for incident scenes in fringe areas.

How Goliad County differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration: Due to an older age profile and rural coverage limitations, the county’s smartphone ownership rate is a bit below statewide norms.
• Higher mobile-only reliance: A larger share of households uses phones as their primary or only internet connection compared with Texas as a whole.
• More prepaid and budget plans: Price sensitivity and inconsistent fixed alternatives nudge users into prepaid and MVNO offerings more than in metro Texas.
• Patchier 5G capacity: Low-band 5G is common, but true mid-band capacity is spotty; mmWave is absent. Urban Texas markets now enjoy substantially higher 5G capacity and consistency.
• Larger performance gaps by location: In-town versus out-of-town differences are sharper than the state average, with notable dead zones in low-lying and heavily wooded areas.
• Resilience challenges: Storm-related outages and limited site redundancy have more visible impact than in well-meshed urban networks.

Notes on method and sources

• Estimates synthesize 2020 Census/ACS demographics for small Texas rural counties, Pew/NTIA smartphone adoption by age and income, and FCC carrier coverage/broadband map patterns as of 2023–2024. Given small population size and dynamic carrier upgrades, figures are best read as ranges and directional indicators rather than precise counts.

Below is an estimate-based snapshot for Goliad County, TX. County-level social-media data isn’t directly published, so figures are derived from the county’s small, older-leaning population profile and applied U.S./rural Texas usage patterns (Pew Research Center 2023–2024; ACS). Treat numbers as directional ranges.

Population and users

• Population: roughly 7–8K residents; adults ~5.5–6.0K
• Social media users: ~4.0–4.7K adults (≈70–78% of adults use at least one platform)

Age mix among local social-media users

• 18–29: ~16–20%
• 30–49: ~32–36% (largest share)
• 50–64: ~24–28%
• 65+: ~18–22% Note: Skews older vs. Texas overall.

Gender breakdown (among local social-media users)

• Female: ~52–55%
• Male: ~45–48% Notes: Women more active on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men heavier on YouTube/Reddit.

Most-used platforms (estimated) Share of all adults in the county who use the platform; in parentheses, share of local social-media users.

• YouTube: 70–80% of adults (≈85–95% of SM users)
• Facebook: 55–65% (≈70–80%)
• Instagram: 25–35% (≈35–45%)
• TikTok: 15–25% (≈20–30%)
• Pinterest: 20–28% (≈28–36%)
• Snapchat: 10–15% (≈15–20%)
• X/Twitter: 8–12% (≈10–15%)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (≈10–15%) Notes: Facebook and YouTube are the clear reach leaders; Instagram/TikTok concentrate among under-40s and parents of school-age kids.

Behavioral trends to expect locally

• Community-first usage: High engagement with Facebook Groups and pages tied to schools, 4-H/FFA, sports, church events, county emergency management, buy/sell/trade, hunting/fishing, and ranching.
• Event-driven spikes: Presidio La Bahía and courthouse square events, market days, rodeos, and high school sports drive bursts of shares, check-ins, and photo posts.
• Content formats: Short vertical video and photo carousels perform best; “how-to,” repairs, ag/ranch tips, wild game, fishing reports, weather alerts, and road conditions get above-average saves/shares.
• Language/messaging: Notable bilingual (English/Spanish) presence; Facebook Messenger dominant; WhatsApp used within some Hispanic family networks.
• Access patterns: Mobile-first usage; peak engagement early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekends mid-day. Simple, fast-loading creative helps in patchy broadband areas.
• Ads/targeting tips: Tight radius and interest targeting (agriculture, hunting, trucks/outdoors, local schools/events); lean on Facebook/Instagram for reach, YouTube for awareness/tutorial content, and TikTok/Instagram Reels for under-40 engagement.