Hamilton County

Hamilton County, Texas — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates, ACS 2019–2023 5-year unless noted)

• Population: ~8,200
• Age:
  • Median age: ~48 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 65 and over: ~25%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50%
  • Male: ~50%
• Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive; Hispanic counted separately):
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~72%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~22–23%
  • Black or African American (NH): ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native (NH): ~1%
  • Asian (NH): <1%
  • Two or more races (NH): ~3–4%
• Households and families:
  • Households: ~3,400
  • Average household size: ~2.3
  • Family households: ~65–66% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~50–55% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~24–25%
  • One-person households: ~30% (about half of these are age 65+)
  • Homeownership rate: ~78–80%

Insights:

• Older age profile than Texas overall (higher share 65+; higher median age).
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a sizeable Hispanic population; small shares of other groups.
• Smaller household size and higher homeownership than state averages, reflecting a rural county profile.

Hamilton County, Texas snapshot

• Population: ~8,300; area ~836 sq mi; density ~10 people/sq mi (very rural).
• Estimated adult email users: ~5,800. Method: ~6,600 adults (≈80% of residents) × ~88–92% email adoption (lower than national due to older age structure).

Age distribution of email users (share of users; approx. counts)

• 18–34: 22% (~1,260)
• 35–54: 33% (~1,910)
• 55–64: 16% (~920)
• 65+: 30% (~1,740)

Gender split

• 50% female (2,900) / 50% male (2,900); usage rates are effectively equal by gender.

Digital access trends and local connectivity facts

• Very low population density raises last‑mile costs; access is strongest in and around Hamilton, Hico, and along major corridors, with fewer fixed options in ranchland areas.
• Home broadband and smartphone-based access together cover the large majority of households; a meaningful minority are mobile-only, which pushes more email use to phones.
• Fixed wireless and satellite (including modern LEO options) fill gaps where cable/fiber are absent; 5G home internet availability is expanding.
• Expect incremental gains in email adoption as new fiber and fixed‑wireless builds funded at the state level reach more addresses, especially older residents.

Mobile phone usage in Hamilton County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

Overall picture

• Hamilton County is a sparsely populated, rural county where mobile connectivity is essential for day‑to‑day communications and, for many households, their primary or only internet connection. Compared with Texas as a whole, the county has lower smartphone/plan adoption, a higher share of cellular‑only home internet, and thinner mid‑band 5G coverage, reflecting its older age structure and rural infrastructure.

User estimates

• Estimated smartphone users: about 6,000 residents use a smartphone regularly. This is based on the county’s population and age profile, applying contemporary adoption rates that are lower than the Texas average due to a higher share of older adults.
• Household internet mix (ACS 2018–2022, 5‑year estimates; household-based measures):
  • Households with a smartphone: ≈87% in Hamilton County (Texas ≈92%)
  • Households with a cellular data plan: ≈68% (Texas ≈79%)
  • Households with fixed broadband (cable/fiber/DSL): ≈58% (Texas ≈72%)
  • Cellular‑only households (cellular data plan but no fixed broadband): ≈17% (Texas ≈12%)
  • No internet subscription: ≈10% (Texas ≈6%)

Demographic breakdown and what it means for mobile use

• Age structure: The county has a markedly older population than Texas overall; roughly one-quarter of residents are 65+. That age mix pulls down smartphone and mobile‑plan adoption relative to the state (older adults adopt smartphones at lower rates and are more likely to have basic or voice‑centric plans).
• Working‑age adults (roughly 35–64) and families with school‑age children show near‑universal mobile adoption and are the core users of hotspotting and cellular‑only home internet, especially outside town centers where fixed options are limited.
• Digital skills and device mix: A higher share of households rely on smartphones as their primary or only computing device compared with Texas overall. This increases dependence on cellular networks for tasks that urban Texans more often do on fixed broadband and PCs.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Network footprint: All three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) report 4G LTE coverage across most populated corridors. 5G is present but more limited than state averages; it is strongest in and around the city of Hamilton and along primary highways, with patchier coverage on ranch roads and in low‑lying areas.
• Capacity and speeds: Mid‑band 5G capacity is notably thinner than in Texas metros, so typical peak speeds and indoor performance lag the state median, and users see more fallback to LTE in fringe areas. Metal‑roofed homes and larger lots increase the need for external antennas or boosters to maintain reliable indoor service.
• Backhaul and redundancy: Fewer fiber-fed cell sites and longer backhaul distances than urban Texas mean more variable performance during peak hours and slower recovery from storms or power events.
• Alternative access: Fixed wireless ISPs and satellite (including newer LEO services) are widely used to supplement or backstop mobile service, particularly on larger properties. This, in turn, raises mobile data usage via phone hotspots where fixed options are unavailable or capped.

Key ways Hamilton County differs from Texas overall

• Higher reliance on mobile as primary home internet: Cellular‑only households are several points higher than the Texas average (≈17% vs ≈12%).
• Lower adoption levels: Shares of households with smartphones and with any cellular data plan trail state figures by roughly 5–10 percentage points.
• Older population drives usage patterns: A larger 65+ cohort results in more voice‑centric plans, lower 5G handset penetration, and slower upgrade cycles than in the state’s urban counties.
• Patchier mid‑band 5G and lower typical capacity: Users experience more LTE fallbacks and greater variability in speeds and indoor coverage than the Texas norm.
• Greater dependence on boosters, hotspots, and alternative access: Residents more often use signal boosters, external antennas, and phone hotspotting, and they lean on fixed wireless or satellite to complement mobile service.

Implications

• For service providers: The market rewards coverage, signal quality, and customer support over ultra‑high peak speeds; plans that bundle hotspot data or home‑internet via fixed wireless resonate more than in metro Texas.
• For public agencies and anchors: Mobile-friendly service delivery (SMS alerts, lightweight web apps) and targeted device/digital‑skills support for older adults will have outsized impact.
• For businesses: Designing for variable bandwidth and offering offline‑capable mobile experiences improves reliability for customers and employees in outlying areas.

Primary data sources underpinning the figures above include the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (2018–2022, 5‑year estimates for device and subscription mix) and the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection for reported mobile coverage and technology mix.

Hamilton County, Texas — social media usage snapshot (2025)

Population baseline

• Total population: ~8,222 (U.S. Census 2020)
• Residents age 13+: ~7,100
• Estimated social media users (age 13+): ~5,500–5,800 (≈68–71% of total population; ≈78–82% of 13+). Modeled from Pew Research Center 2023–2024 adoption rates adjusted for rural Texas age mix.

Age profile of social users (share of local social media users)

• 13–17: ~8–10%
• 18–29: ~15–18%
• 30–49: ~26–30%
• 50–64: ~25–28%
• 65+: ~18–22% Interpretation: The county skews older than the U.S. average, so Facebook and YouTube dominate; TikTok/Snapchat concentrate among teens and 18–29s.

Gender breakdown

• Women: ~51–53% of social users
• Men: ~47–49% of social users Note: Overall adoption is similar by gender; distribution mirrors the county’s near-even sex ratio.

Most-used platforms in Hamilton County (estimated monthly reach among local social media users)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~75–80%
• Instagram: ~35–45%
• TikTok: ~25–35%
• Snapchat: ~20–30% (heavy among 13–29)
• X (Twitter): ~10–15%
• LinkedIn: ~8–12%
• WhatsApp: ~5–10% (smaller, reflecting county demographics)
• Nextdoor: ~2–5% (limited rural footprint)

Behavioral trends

• Community-first usage: Very high engagement with local Facebook Groups/pages (city, county, schools, churches, volunteer fire/EMS, 4-H/FFA, youth sports). Local news, weather alerts, road closures, and lost/found posts drive spikes.
• Marketplace culture: Facebook Marketplace and buy/sell/trade groups are among the highest-traffic destinations; practical, price-forward listings outperform polished creative.
• Video habits: YouTube is the default for how-to, farm/ranch, hunting/fishing, sports highlights, church services, and appliance/auto repair. Short-form video (Reels/TikTok) is rising among under‑35s; vertical video outperforms for reach.
• Timing: Engagement clusters evenings (7–10 p.m.) and weekends; morning checks see steady but lighter activity. Major school or weather events override typical patterns.
• Trust and amplification: Posts from recognizable local institutions and individuals spread fastest. Photo or short video plus a plain-language caption boosts shares; link-out news posts get fewer comments than native posts.
• Youth split: Teens gravitate to Snapchat (messaging/stories) and TikTok (entertainment, sports, trends). They still rely on Facebook indirectly via parents/community for school and event info.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is a default for local coordination (swaps, meetups, service calls), especially where phone numbers aren’t exchanged.

How these numbers were derived

• Population: U.S. Census Bureau (2020).
• Adoption rates: Pew Research Center 2023–2024 platform use by age/gender, with rural vs. urban deltas applied to a rural Texas age profile. County-level social media counts are not directly published; figures above are best-available local estimates grounded in national benchmarks adjusted for rural demographics.