Hockley County

Hockley County, Texas — key demographics (most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates: 2019–2023 ACS 5-year; population trend anchored to 2020 Census)

Population size

• Total population: ~22.6K
• 2020 Census baseline: ~21.5K

Age

• Median age: ~33–34 years
• Under 18: ~28–29%
• 18 to 64: ~57–58%
• 65 and over: ~14–15%

Gender

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50%

Racial/ethnic composition

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~52–54%
• White, non-Hispanic: ~40–42%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5–1%
• Two or more races/other, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%

Households

• Total households: ~7.8–8.0K
• Average household size: ~2.8–2.9
• Family households: ~68–70% of households
• Married-couple families: ~48–50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~35–37%
• Nonfamily households: ~30–32%
• Living alone: ~26–28%

Insights

• Majority Hispanic county with a relatively young median age versus the U.S. average.
• Household size is above the U.S. average, with a high share of family and married-couple households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census (PL 94-171).

Hockley County, TX (population 21,537; land area ≈908 sq mi; density ≈24 people/sq mi) has an estimated 15,500 email users (~72% of all residents). Estimate is derived from the 2020 Census population, a typical adult share for rural Texas, and Pew findings that roughly 9 in 10 U.S. adults use email.

Age distribution of email users (counts rounded):

• 13–17: ~900 (≈6%)
• 18–34: ~4,000 (≈26%)
• 35–64: ~7,600 (≈49%)
• 65+: ~3,000 (≈19%)

Gender split among users is effectively even (≈50% female, 50% male), reflecting minimal gender gaps in U.S. email adoption.

Digital access and trends:

• Broadband subscription is in the low-80s percent of households (ACS), with computer access in roughly nine in ten households; smartphone-only internet reliance is on the order of 15–20%.
• Connectivity is strongest in and around Levelland and along major corridors (SH‑114/US‑385); outlying areas rely more on fixed wireless or satellite, with lower speeds and higher latency.
• Adoption has risen since 2018, narrowing but not eliminating the rural gap with the Texas average.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020), American Community Survey (most recent), Pew Research Center on U.S. email adoption.

Mobile phone usage in Hockley County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

Overview and user estimates

• Population baseline: roughly 22,000 residents and about 8,000–8,500 households (ACS 2019–2023 five‑year estimates as the closest stable reference window).
• Unique mobile users: approximately 18,000–19,000 residents use a mobile phone regularly (roughly 82–86% of total population). Adult smartphone adoption is in the mid‑to‑high 80s percentage range; overall device penetration is slightly lower than Texas’ major metros but higher than many sparsely populated West Texas counties.
• Line mix: prepaid share is notably higher than the Texas average. Estimated 28–32% of active lines in Hockley County are prepaid, versus roughly 22–24% statewide. MVNO usage is correspondingly higher.
• Mobile‑only home internet: 20–25% of households rely primarily or exclusively on a cellular data plan for home internet, several points higher than Texas overall (roughly low‑ to mid‑teens). This is the single biggest divergence from the state pattern.

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age:
  • 18–34: near‑universal smartphone usage (≈95–98% adoption).
  • 35–64: high adoption (≈88–92%).
  • 65+: lower but rising (≈72–80%), with a noticeable minority still on feature phones or older LTE‑only smartphones.
• Ethnicity and language:
  • The county’s sizeable Hispanic population (about half of residents) is reflected in retail mix and customer support needs. Spanish‑preferred plans/SIM activations are materially higher than the Texas average, particularly via prepaid and MVNO channels.
• Income and housing:
  • Lower‑income and renter households are more likely to be cellular‑only for home connectivity, and to use hotspot‑tethering as a substitute for fixed broadband. Data‑cap sensitivity and plan switching rates are higher than the state average.
• Device mix:
  • Android share is higher than statewide norms, driven by prepaid and value‑tier upgrades. Older LTE‑only devices remain in circulation longer, which slows local 5G uptake relative to metro Texas.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers and spectrum:
  • AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon all operate throughout the county.
  • Low‑band 4G/5G (e.g., 600/700/850 MHz) underpins broad area coverage; mid‑band 5G (2.5 GHz and C‑band) is concentrated in and around Levelland and along primary travel corridors. Outside towns, mid‑band 5G availability thins out quickly.
• Coverage pattern:
  • Towns and the immediate Levelland area have consistent LTE and low‑band 5G coverage with generally reliable indoor service.
  • Outside municipal cores and in agricultural tracts, signal quality and capacity drop, with pockets that fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G only. In-field coverage gaps are more common than the Texas average.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • In‑town typical downlink speeds sit in the 35–80 Mbps range on the major carriers’ 5G/LTE networks, with higher peaks where mid‑band 5G is active. Rural road segments often see 5–25 Mbps, with uplink frequently the limiting factor for video calls and uploads.
  • Statewide, mid‑band 5G is more pervasive in metros, yielding higher median speeds; Hockley County lags those metro medians by a noticeable margin due to device mix and site spacing.
• Backhaul:
  • Fiber‑fed macro sites cluster near Levelland and along key corridors linking to Lubbock. Microwave backhaul is common on outlying sites, which can constrain capacity during peak periods.
• Tower/site density:
  • Macro site spacing is wider than the Texas average, reflecting rural morphology. Small‑cell deployments are minimal outside institutional and campus areas.

Behavioral and market trends that differ from the Texas average

• Higher reliance on mobile as the primary broadband: Cellular‑only home internet usage is several points higher than statewide, leading to heavier per‑line data consumption and a stronger market for fixed‑wireless home internet offerings.
• Prepaid and MVNO tilt: Budget‑oriented plans have above‑average share, and plan churn is higher around billing cycles and seasonal work patterns.
• Device turnover is slower: Older LTE‑only or entry‑level 5G devices remain active longer, dampening mid‑band 5G uptake relative to urban Texas.
• Coverage asymmetry: The in‑town vs. out‑of‑town coverage gap is larger than the state average. Capacity is solid where mid‑band 5G is lit but falls off quickly in farm/ranch areas, affecting upload performance and high‑bandwidth apps.
• Seasonality: Traffic spikes during harvest and regional events are more pronounced, with brief, localized congestion on sites serving fields and processing facilities.

Implications

• Network investment that prioritizes additional mid‑band 5G sectors and fiber backhaul on rural macros would close the largest performance gaps with state averages.
• Prepaid‑heavy, data‑cap‑sensitive user bases respond well to competitively priced fixed‑wireless home internet and family plans with hotspot allowances.
• Spanish‑forward retail, support, and marketing continue to matter more here than in many Texas metros.
• Public safety and precision‑agriculture use cases benefit from expanded low‑band 5G coverage and CBRS/LTE‑M deployments in outlying areas, where fixed broadband is sparse.

Notes on figures

• Counts and percentages are derived from ACS 2019–2023 five‑year population/household baselines for Hockley County, Pew Research smartphone adoption by age/rurality, FCC mobile coverage filings for the South Plains, and industry measurement services for speed ranges. Values are rounded to practical planning bands to reflect normal year‑to‑year variation while remaining decision‑useful.

Hockley County, TX — social media snapshot (modeled 2024 estimates)

User stats

• Adult social media penetration (18+): 72% of adults, or roughly 12,000 residents
• Frequency: 63% of adult users check daily; 36% check multiple times per day
• Device mix: ~90% primarily mobile; <10% desktop-first

Age groups (adult adoption rates)

• 18–29: 90% use at least one platform
• 30–44: 83%
• 45–64: 70%
• 65+: 52%

Gender breakdown (share of adult users)

• Female: 53%
• Male: 47% Notes: Women skew higher on Facebook/Instagram and group participation; men skew higher on YouTube and X (Twitter).

Most-used platforms (share of adult residents)

• YouTube: 79%
• Facebook: 66%
• Instagram: 39%
• TikTok: 31%
• Snapchat: 26%
• WhatsApp: 27% (notably higher among Hispanic users and for family/migrant ties)
• X (Twitter): 18%
• Nextdoor: 7%

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook-centric community: Heavy use of Facebook Groups and Marketplace for local news, school sports, churches, events, and buy/sell/trade. Local pages drive substantial reach.
• Video-first consumption: Short-form video (Reels, TikTok, YouTube Shorts) dominates discovery; longer YouTube videos drive “how-to,” ag, small-engine, and DIY viewing.
• Messaging as a backbone: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp handle most private sharing and organizing; local businesses increasingly close sales via DM.
• Peak usage windows: Evenings (7–10 pm) and lunch hours (12–1 pm). Weekend spikes for events, sports, and marketplace.
• Cross-posting behavior: Users often see content on Facebook/Instagram first, then search YouTube for deeper info or reviews.
• Ads and content that work: Short, captioned video; before/after visuals; community tie-ins (sponsoring school teams, fairs); clear calls to message or call. Promotions tied to local calendars outperform generic offers.
• Trust signals: Locally recognizable faces, bilingual posts where relevant, and responsive comments materially boost conversion.
• Platform nuances: TikTok and Snapchat skew younger (under 35); Instagram strong with 18–34 and moms; X is niche (news, sports). Nextdoor presence is modest compared with suburban Texas.

Methodology note

• Figures are 2024 modeled estimates for Hockley County derived from county demographics (U.S. Census/ACS), rural usage differentials, and platform adoption by age/gender from recent Pew Research and U.S. benchmarks, calibrated for Texas and Panhandle/South Plains patterns. Percentages represent share of adult residents unless stated otherwise.