Haskell County

Haskell County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 5,416 (2020 Decennial Census)
• ~5,300 (2023 Census Bureau vintage estimate; continued gradual decline from 2010)

Age

• Median age: ~45 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Age structure (ACS 2019–2023): ~22% under 18; ~55% 18–64; ~23% 65+

Gender

• Male ~50% | Female ~50% (ACS 2019–2023)

Racial/ethnic composition

• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~30%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~64%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, and other/2+ races (non-Hispanic combined): ~3% (2020 Census race/ethnicity framework)

Household data (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~2,200
• Average household size: ~2.3–2.4 persons
• Family households: ~63% of households; average family size ~2.9
• Households with children under 18: ~1 in 4
• Homeownership rate: ~74%

Insights

• Small, slowly declining population with an older age profile
• High homeownership and a majority of family households
• Significant Hispanic/Latino community alongside a majority non-Hispanic White population

Email usage in Haskell County, TX (estimates, 2023–2024)

• Users: ~4,070 adult email users (≈92% of ≈4,424 adults; county population ≈5,600).
• Age mix of email users: 18–29: 18%; 30–49: 31%; 50–64: 26%; 65+: 25% (adoption ≈95% under 50, ≈91% ages 50–64, ≈85% 65+).
• Gender split: women 51%, men 49% among email users.

Digital access and trends

• Home connectivity: ~72% of households have fixed broadband; ~80% have any internet subscription; ~20% have none.
• Devices: ~86% of households have a desktop/laptop/tablet; ~11% rely mainly on smartphone data plans.
• Trendlines: growing smartphone-only access and gradual senior uptake; email remains the default channel for schools, clinics, and local services.

Local density/connectivity context

• Area ≈910 sq mi; population density ≈6 people per sq mi. The sparse, rural settlement pattern increases last‑mile costs and yields patchier high‑speed options outside the City of Haskell, moderating speeds and slightly suppressing email use among older and lower‑income residents.

Mobile phone usage in Haskell County, Texas — key statistics and how they differ from state-level

User estimates

• Population and households: ~5,400 residents and ~2,200–2,300 households (2023). Adults (18+) ≈ 4,200.
• Smartphone users: ~3,300–3,700 adults (about 78–85% of adults). Texas adult smartphone adoption is higher at roughly 88–92%, so Haskell County trails the state by about 5–12 percentage points.
• Household smartphone ownership: ~82% of households have a smartphone. Texas is ~90–92%.
• Households with a cellular data plan (for a smartphone/other mobile device): ~60%. Texas is ~72–75%.
• Households with any broadband subscription (including cellular): ~72% in Haskell County vs ~87–89% statewide.
• Households with no home internet subscription: ~20–25% in Haskell County vs ~10–12% in Texas.
• Cellular-only (smartphone/hotspot as primary home internet): ~15% of households in Haskell County vs ~10–12% statewide.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age:
  • 65+ share of population is high (~25–28% vs ~13% in Texas).
  • Estimated smartphone adoption among 65+ in Haskell County: ~55–65% (lower than Texas seniors at ~70–80%). This age structure is a primary driver of the county’s lower overall mobile adoption and higher voice/SMS reliance.
• Income and affordability:
  • Median household income is substantially below the Texas median, contributing to:
    • Higher prepaid plan usage and price-sensitive carrier switching.
    • Greater reliance on cellular data in lieu of fixed broadband (notably among lower-income and single-adult households).
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Roughly: Non-Hispanic White ~60–65%, Hispanic/Latino ~25–30%, Black ~2–4%, other ~3–6%.
  • Differences in smartphone uptake across groups locally are smaller than the age/income effects; affordability and device turnover cycles explain more of the county gap relative to the state than ethnicity alone.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage:
  • 4G LTE: Broad population coverage (mid- to high-90s percent of populated areas) by AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile.
  • 5G: Low-band 5G spans main population centers and highways; mid-band 5G capacity is limited and more spotty than in metro Texas.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Typical median mobile download speeds in the county are lower than statewide (often ~35–60 Mbps vs Texas medians of ~100–150 Mbps), reflecting sparser site density, more microwave backhaul, and limited mid-band 5G.
  • Performance degrades off the main corridors and during peak evening hours due to fewer sectors per site and longer intersite distances.
• Sites and backhaul:
  • Rural macro spacing (roughly 3–6 miles) with comparatively few sectors per tower; coverage is prioritized over capacity.
  • Microwave backhaul remains common outside the county seat; fiber backhaul clusters along primary routes (e.g., US‑380/US‑277 corridors).
• Public safety and reliability:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) coverage present in population centers and along major roads; indoor coverage gaps persist in metal/stone buildings away from town centers.
• Dead zones:
  • Signal fades on low-traffic farm-to-market roads, creek bottoms, and between smaller communities (e.g., outside Haskell, Rule, Rochester, and Weinert), especially for mid-band 5G.

Trends that differ from Texas overall

• Slower 5G capacity rollout: Haskell County relies more on low-band 5G/LTE than the mid-band 5G common in metro Texas, keeping average speeds and app experiences (HD video, hotspot performance, multi-user tethering) below the state norm.
• Higher cellular dependence for home internet: A larger share of households use a smartphone/hotspot as their primary internet connection compared with the state, driven by patchier wired options and affordability.
• Older age mix dampens smartphone penetration and advanced feature use: Seniors form a larger share of users, pulling down adoption of app-centric services (telehealth video, mobile banking with biometrics, 2FA apps) relative to Texas urban counties.
• Prepaid and budget MVNO share is higher: Price sensitivity and limited device upgrade cycles result in more prepaid lines and longer retention of LTE-only devices than statewide averages.
• Greater variability by location: In-town experiences can be solid, but out-of-town performance decays more quickly than the statewide pattern due to wider intersite spacing and terrain effects.

What to watch

• As mid-band 5G and fiber backhaul extend along major corridors, the county’s median speeds should rise and the gap to the state narrow, especially for T‑Mobile and AT&T sectors upgraded with n41/n77 and fiber.
• Increased availability of ACP-replacement or local affordability programs will likely shift a portion of cellular-only households to fixed broadband, reducing mobile data congestion during peak hours.

Notes on sources and estimation

• County-level household smartphone, broadband, and cellular-plan figures reflect American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year patterns and are scaled to Haskell County’s household counts; statewide comparison uses ACS and Pew/NTIA aggregates. Coverage/performance characterizations reflect FCC Broadband Data Collection filings and widely observed rural Texas deployment patterns. Figures are rounded to emphasize order-of-magnitude differences relevant to planning.

Social media usage in Haskell County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

Baseline

• Population: ~5,400 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 est.)
• Connected households and devices: ~75–80% broadband subscription; ~80–85% adult smartphone ownership (NTIA/Pew rural benchmarks)
• Social media reach: ~3,500–3,700 residents use at least one social platform monthly (≈65–70% of total population; ≈70–75% of adults)

Age groups (share using at least one social platform)

• 13–17: ~90–95%
• 18–34: ~90–93%
• 35–54: ~78–85%
• 55–64: ~68–72%
• 65+: ~45–50% Note: The county’s older age profile means 35+ accounts for a majority of local users despite lower per-capita adoption in 65+.

Gender breakdown

• Among social media users: ~54% women, ~46% men
• Platform skews: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, X, Reddit. The female skew is most pronounced on Pinterest; the male skew is most pronounced on YouTube/Reddit.

Most-used platforms in Haskell County (point estimates; monthly use; overlapping audiences)

• YouTube: 80% of social media users (2,800–3,000 people)
• Facebook: 70% (2,400–2,600)
• Instagram: 35% (1,200–1,300)
• TikTok: 28% (950–1,050)
• Pinterest: 28% (950–1,050; majority female)
• Snapchat: 22% (750–800; concentrated under 30)
• WhatsApp: 18% (600–700; higher among Hispanic residents and family ties)
• X (Twitter): 18% (600–700; skew male/news-oriented)
• LinkedIn: 12% (400–450; lowest in rural labor markets)

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook is the community backbone: High engagement with school, church, athletics, buy/sell groups, local government, emergency/weather updates. Evening (7–9 pm) and weekend peaks; midday bump around lunch.
• YouTube is utility-first: Strong interest in home/auto repair, agriculture/ranching, hunting/fishing, local sports highlights, and how-to content. Often a substitute for traditional TV among cord-cutters.
• Short-form video grows discovery: Reels/TikTok drive awareness for local events, restaurants, and small businesses among under-35s; cross-posting Reels to Facebook improves reach to older audiences.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger dominates for community and family; WhatsApp is niche but important for Hispanic and cross-border family communication; SMS remains common for older adults.
• Content that travels: Hyper-local faces and practical value (school calendars, game scores, closures, weather, lost-and-found pets) outperform generic posts. Severe weather/wildfire updates produce sharp, short-lived spikes.
• Advertising efficacy: Small budgets perform best with radius targeting (20–30 miles), event responses, lead-gen forms, and boosted posts tied to timely, local hooks; older cohorts respond better to clear text + phone number than link-out funnels.
• Trust signals: Posts from known community members/pages, clear photos of local places, and prompt comment replies are key for credibility in a small market.

Method note

• Figures are modeled estimates for Haskell County using 2023 ACS demographics and 2024 Pew/NTIA rural social media and connectivity benchmarks; small-county variance is expected (±5–10 percentage points).