Gray County Local Demographic Profile
Key demographics for Gray County, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates):
Population
- Total population: ~21,900
- Median age: ~37
- Age distribution: under 18 ~25%; 18–64 ~59%; 65+ ~16%
Sex
- Male ~50.4%
- Female ~49.6%
Race and Hispanic origin
- Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~29%
- Non-Hispanic White: ~61%
- Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~3%
- American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~1%
- Asian (non-Hispanic): ~1%
- Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~5%
- Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic): ~0.1%
Households and families
- Total households: ~8,550
- Average household size: ~2.56
- Family households: ~66% of households
- Married-couple households: ~49% of all households
- Households with children under 18: ~33%
- Nonfamily households: ~34%
- One-person households: ~29%
- Age 65+ living alone: ~12%
Housing tenure
- Owner-occupied: ~71%
- Renter-occupied: ~29%
Insights
- Small, stable population with a modestly aging profile
- Significant Hispanic community (~3 in 10 residents)
- Household structure is family-oriented with high homeownership relative to state and national averages
Email Usage in Gray County
Gray County, TX email usage snapshot (modeled from U.S. Census ACS and Pew Research rates)
- Estimated email users: ~15,000 adults. Basis: population ~22,000; ~75% adults; ~92% of U.S. adults use email regularly.
- Age distribution of email users (approximate share of total users):
- 18–34: 26% (~3,900)
- 35–54: 33% (~5,000)
- 55–64: 16% (~2,400)
- 65+: 25% (~3,700)
- Gender split among email users: roughly 50% female, 50% male, mirroring county demographics.
- Digital access and devices:
- Home internet subscription: ~80–85% of households (below Texas average), with ~70–75% on fixed broadband and ~12–18% mobile-only.
- Smartphone ownership: ~85–90% of adults; reliance is higher among lower‑income and rural households.
- Local density/connectivity facts:
- Rural Panhandle county with low density (~23–24 people per square mile); most residents are in and around Pampa, where fixed broadband options are concentrated.
- Outlying areas show greater dependence on fixed wireless and satellite, and slower speeds than urban Texas norms.
- Trend insight: Email remains near‑universal among connected adults; growth is driven by mobile access, while older and remote households account for most of the remaining non‑users.
Mobile Phone Usage in Gray County
Mobile phone usage in Gray County, Texas — 2024 snapshot
What “mobile usage” looks like locally
- Users and subscriptions
- Population baseline: about 21,000–22,000 residents, concentrated in and around Pampa, with small towns like Lefors and McLean and wide rural areas.
- Active mobile subscriptions: roughly 20,000–22,500 lines (about 0.95–1.05 lines per resident). This is slightly lower per-capita than the Texas metro average, reflecting fewer data-only devices and wearables.
- Smartphone users: approximately 18,500–19,500 residents use a smartphone (about 86–90% of residents), a few points below the Texas average.
- Smartphone-only internet households: estimated 26–30% locally versus roughly 19–21% statewide. Gray County relies on mobile as a primary home internet connection more than Texas overall.
Demographic breakdown of usage
- Age
- 18–34: near-universal smartphone adoption (~95–98%); heavy app and video streaming usage.
- 35–64: high adoption (~88–92%); strong dependence on mobile for work coordination and navigation.
- 65+: lower but rising adoption (~78–82%); voice/text first, growing telehealth and messaging use.
- Income and plan type
- Households under $35k: highest smartphone-only reliance (about one-third) and higher prevalence of prepaid plans and hotspot tethering; mobile bills are often optimized via MVNOs and family plans.
- Middle-income households: mixed fixed-plus-mobile patterns; mobile data is the backup when fixed service underperforms.
- Race/ethnicity
- The county’s population is predominantly non-Hispanic White with a sizable Hispanic community (roughly one-quarter). Hispanic households show above-average smartphone-only reliance (about 30–35%) relative to non-Hispanic White households (about 22–26%), mirroring broader Texas patterns but with a larger gap locally due to fixed-broadband constraints.
- Household connectivity posture
- Wireless-only voice households are common, with most adults foregoing landlines.
- Multi-line family plans dominate among working-age households; seniors skew to single-line voice-first plans with smaller data buckets.
Digital infrastructure and performance
- Coverage
- 4G LTE: near-ubiquitous across populated areas from all three national carriers; outdoor population coverage ~99% and broad highway coverage on US-60 and FM routes.
- 5G: low-band 5G from all major carriers in and around Pampa and along primary corridors; mid-band (capacity 5G) is present but more limited than in Texas metros, strongest on T-Mobile near Pampa. Expect more time-on-LTE than the state average outside town centers.
- Speeds and reliability
- Typical user experience: LTE 10–30 Mbps down / 3–10 Mbps up in rural stretches; 5G low-band 30–80 Mbps; pockets of mid-band 5G can deliver 200–400+ Mbps where available.
- Variability: noticeable evening and event-hour slowdowns in Pampa and along commuter routes; metal-building penetration issues are common in industrial facilities.
- Sites and backhaul
- Dozens of macro sites serve the county; coverage is serviceable in towns and along highways, with sparse sectors in ranchland.
- Backhaul mixes microwave and fiber; fiber concentration is highest in Pampa, improving stability there versus outlying areas.
- Fixed-broadband interplay
- Cable broadband is available in Pampa; fiber to the home remains limited outside selected streets or business corridors; DSL and fixed wireless serve many rural addresses.
- Because fixed options thin out quickly beyond town, mobile networks shoulder a larger share of last-mile internet than they do in most Texas counties.
How Gray County differs from the Texas statewide picture
- More mobile-only households: Gray County’s smartphone-only reliance is higher by roughly 5–10 percentage points, driven by patchier fixed-broadband availability outside Pampa.
- Slightly lower smartphone penetration overall: a few points below the state’s metro-weighted average due to age and income distribution.
- Slower 5G rollout depth: low-band 5G is present, but mid-band 5G capacity layers cover a smaller share of daily user time than in major Texas metros, keeping median speeds lower and LTE fallback more common.
- Higher prepaid/MVNO share: cost-sensitive users lean on prepaid and MVNO plans more than the statewide average; device refresh cycles are longer, which dampens advanced 5G feature uptake.
- Greater dependence on mobile hotspots: mobile tethering and hotspot devices are used more frequently for home, school, and field work than in urban counties.
Actionable implications
- Capacity hotspots to watch: Pampa evenings/after-school, school campuses, hospital/clinic zones, and highway segments during shift changes; targeted mid-band 5G and small-cell infill would yield outsized benefits.
- Digital equity: boosting fixed-wireless and fiber reach beyond town limits would reduce mobile-only reliance and improve overall service quality; in the interim, zero-rating for education/telehealth and expanded data allowances meaningfully impact outcomes.
- Business and public safety: priority and preemption features (FirstNet/priority access), C-band/N77 sectors, and hardened backhaul on key corridors improve resilience for energy, agriculture, and emergency response.
Notes on estimates and sources
- Figures synthesize the latest available U.S. Census Bureau/ACS Computer and Internet Use, NTIA Internet Use Survey, FCC mobile coverage data, and national mobile adoption research (e.g., Pew), calibrated to rural Texas and Panhandle county profiles as of 2024. Where county-specific measurements are not directly published, values are inferred from these datasets and local infrastructure patterns.
Social Media Trends in Gray County
Social media usage snapshot in Gray County, Texas (modeled 2024–2025)
- Overall penetration: Approximately 75% of adults use at least one social platform; smartphone-first usage is common in rural households.
Most-used platforms among adults (estimated share of adult residents who use each, any frequency)
- YouTube: 82%
- Facebook: 70%
- Instagram: 40%
- TikTok: 28%
- Snapchat: 24%
- WhatsApp: 27% (elevated by the county’s Hispanic population)
- X (Twitter): 22%
- Pinterest: 31% (notably higher among women)
- Reddit: 15%
- LinkedIn: 18%
Age profile and platform mix
- Teens (13–17): Very high on YouTube; heavy daily use of Snapchat and TikTok; Instagram strong; Facebook minimal except for school/activities updates.
- Young adults (18–29): YouTube near-universal; Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok are core; Facebook used for events and Marketplace more than posting.
- Adults (30–49): Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram mainstream; TikTok usage growing; LinkedIn used by managers/professionals; WhatsApp common for family and community chats.
- Adults (50–64): Facebook first, YouTube second; Pinterest popular; Instagram moderate; TikTok limited but rising via re-posted Reels/Shorts.
- Seniors (65+): Facebook for family updates and local groups; YouTube for how-to and news; lighter on Instagram/TikTok.
Gender breakdown (usage tendencies)
- Near parity on Facebook and Instagram.
- Women over-index on Pinterest (roughly 2x men) and are somewhat more active on Snapchat and Facebook groups.
- Men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, and X; slight lean toward hobby/technical channels and local sports news.
Behavioral trends in Gray County
- Community-first Facebook usage: Buy/sell/trade, school and church announcements, local news, severe weather updates, and lost-and-found pets drive engagement.
- Marketplace is a primary local commerce channel; posts with clear photos, prices, and pickup details perform best.
- YouTube is the “how-to” hub (home/auto repair, ranching/ag, hunting/fishing, small-engine and oilfield maintenance) and for cord-cutting news/sports highlights.
- Short-form video adoption is rising among 30–49 via Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, not just TikTok.
- WhatsApp usage clusters in Hispanic families and friend networks for private group chats and event coordination; Spanish/English bilingual content boosts reach.
- News and sports: X and Facebook pages for high school sports, weather, and statewide headlines; late-evening peaks align with shift work.
- Trust and response: Local voice, recognizable landmarks, and community involvement (sponsoring school teams, charity drives) materially lift click-through and shares.
Notes on sources and method
- Figures are modeled by applying Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. platform usage rates by age/gender and rural vs. urban patterns to Gray County’s population mix from the U.S. Census Bureau/ACS, then rounded to whole percentages. They represent best-available local estimates rather than platform-reported counts.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Texas
- Anderson
- Andrews
- Angelina
- Aransas
- Archer
- Armstrong
- Atascosa
- Austin
- Bailey
- Bandera
- Bastrop
- Baylor
- Bee
- Bell
- Bexar
- Blanco
- Borden
- Bosque
- Bowie
- Brazoria
- Brazos
- Brewster
- Briscoe
- Brooks
- Brown
- Burleson
- Burnet
- Caldwell
- Calhoun
- Callahan
- Cameron
- Camp
- Carson
- Cass
- Castro
- Chambers
- Cherokee
- Childress
- Clay
- Cochran
- Coke
- Coleman
- Collin
- Collingsworth
- Colorado
- Comal
- Comanche
- Concho
- Cooke
- Coryell
- Cottle
- Crane
- Crockett
- Crosby
- Culberson
- Dallam
- Dallas
- Dawson
- De Witt
- Deaf Smith
- Delta
- Denton
- Dickens
- Dimmit
- Donley
- Duval
- Eastland
- Ector
- Edwards
- El Paso
- Ellis
- Erath
- Falls
- Fannin
- Fayette
- Fisher
- Floyd
- Foard
- Fort Bend
- Franklin
- Freestone
- Frio
- Gaines
- Galveston
- Garza
- Gillespie
- Glasscock
- Goliad
- Gonzales
- Grayson
- Gregg
- Grimes
- Guadalupe
- Hale
- Hall
- Hamilton
- Hansford
- Hardeman
- Hardin
- Harris
- Harrison
- Hartley
- Haskell
- Hays
- Hemphill
- Henderson
- Hidalgo
- Hill
- Hockley
- Hood
- Hopkins
- Houston
- Howard
- Hudspeth
- Hunt
- Hutchinson
- Irion
- Jack
- Jackson
- Jasper
- Jeff Davis
- Jefferson
- Jim Hogg
- Jim Wells
- Johnson
- Jones
- Karnes
- Kaufman
- Kendall
- Kenedy
- Kent
- Kerr
- Kimble
- King
- Kinney
- Kleberg
- Knox
- La Salle
- Lamar
- Lamb
- Lampasas
- Lavaca
- Lee
- Leon
- Liberty
- Limestone
- Lipscomb
- Live Oak
- Llano
- Loving
- Lubbock
- Lynn
- Madison
- Marion
- Martin
- Mason
- Matagorda
- Maverick
- Mcculloch
- Mclennan
- Mcmullen
- Medina
- Menard
- Midland
- Milam
- Mills
- Mitchell
- Montague
- Montgomery
- Moore
- Morris
- Motley
- Nacogdoches
- Navarro
- Newton
- Nolan
- Nueces
- Ochiltree
- Oldham
- Orange
- Palo Pinto
- Panola
- Parker
- Parmer
- Pecos
- Polk
- Potter
- Presidio
- Rains
- Randall
- Reagan
- Real
- Red River
- Reeves
- Refugio
- Roberts
- Robertson
- Rockwall
- Runnels
- Rusk
- Sabine
- San Augustine
- San Jacinto
- San Patricio
- San Saba
- Schleicher
- Scurry
- Shackelford
- Shelby
- Sherman
- Smith
- Somervell
- Starr
- Stephens
- Sterling
- Stonewall
- Sutton
- Swisher
- Tarrant
- Taylor
- Terrell
- Terry
- Throckmorton
- Titus
- Tom Green
- Travis
- Trinity
- Tyler
- Upshur
- Upton
- Uvalde
- Val Verde
- Van Zandt
- Victoria
- Walker
- Waller
- Ward
- Washington
- Webb
- Wharton
- Wheeler
- Wichita
- Wilbarger
- Willacy
- Williamson
- Wilson
- Winkler
- Wise
- Wood
- Yoakum
- Young
- Zapata
- Zavala