Hunt County

Hunt County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 2023 population estimate: 110,400
• 2010–2023 growth: roughly +25%

Age

• Median age: 38.7 years
• Under 18: 24%
• 18 to 64: 58%
• 65 and over: 18%

Gender

• Female: 50.2%
• Male: 49.8%

Race and ethnicity (share of total population)

• Non-Hispanic White: 63%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): 18%
• Black/African American (non-Hispanic): 12%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): 4%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): 1%
• Other, incl. American Indian/Alaska Native and NHPI (non-Hispanic): 2%

Households and living arrangements

• Total households: 41,000
• Average household size: 2.64; average family size: 3.20
• Family households: 66% of households; married-couple households: 47%
• Households with children under 18: 31%
• One-person households: 28%; adults 65+ living alone: 11%
• Housing tenure: 69% owner-occupied; 31% renter-occupied

Insights

• Steady population growth with an age structure slightly older than the Texas median
• Majority non-Hispanic White with notable Hispanic and Black populations
• Higher homeownership and smaller household size than the Texas average

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2023 county estimate) and American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household characteristics). ACS figures are survey estimates.

Hunt County, TX snapshot (2024):

• Population ~108,000 across ~882 sq mi (≈122 people/sq mi). Core connectivity clusters along I‑30 (Greenville, Commerce); more sparse coverage toward Quinlan, Lone Oak, and Lake Tawakoni.
• Estimated adult email users: ~76,400. Basis: ~84,200 adults (≈78% of population) with adult email adoption ~91%.

Age distribution of email users (count; adoption within group):

• 18–29: ~15,500 (≈97%)
• 30–49: ~25,900 (≈96%)
• 50–64: ~18,600 (≈92%)
• 65+: ~16,400 (≈78%)

Gender split:

• Female: ~39,100 users (≈51%)
• Male: ~37,300 users (≈49%)

Digital access and trends:

• ~85% of households subscribe to fixed broadband; ~92% have a computer; ~13% are smartphone‑only internet households (ACS, recent 5‑year).
• Adoption and speeds are highest in Greenville/Commerce and along major corridors; rural pockets remain comparatively underserved, driving higher smartphone‑only reliance.
• Continued fiber buildouts and state/federal funds are narrowing gaps, but older and rural residents show lower email adoption than prime‑age groups.

Bottom line: roughly three‑quarters of Hunt County adults use email, with near‑universal use under 65, a modest male/female balance, strong broadband in population centers, and lingering access challenges in low‑density areas.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Hunt County, Texas

Headline findings

• Mobile adoption is high but slightly below the Texas average. Households are more likely than the state to rely on cellular data as their primary connection, reflecting a more rural connectivity profile.
• 5G covers the I‑30/Greenville corridor broadly; LTE remains the practical ceiling in several outlying tracts, creating a noticeable urban–rural performance gap within the county.

User estimates

• Population baseline: ~108,000 residents (2023 Census estimate); ~39,000–40,000 households.
• Active mobile phone users: 75,000–85,000 residents (roughly 72–78% of the population), driven by very high adult and teen smartphone ownership.
• Household smartphone penetration: approximately 89–91% of households in Hunt County, versus ~92–93% for Texas overall (ACS S2801, latest available).
• Internet subscription mix:
  • Any internet subscription: ~84–86% of households (Hunt) vs ~90–91% (Texas).
  • Households with a cellular data plan (of any kind): ~74–76% (Hunt) vs ~72–74% (Texas).
  • Cellular‑only households (cellular data plan but no fixed broadband): ~12–15% (Hunt) vs ~10–12% (Texas).
• Device mix and plans: Prepaid participation and multi‑SIM usage are modestly higher than the Texas average, consistent with lower median incomes and higher cellular‑only rates.

Demographic breakdown (usage and reliance)

• Age
  • 13–17: Smartphone access is near‑universal; heavy mobile‑first media and messaging use, similar to statewide patterns.
  • 18–64: High ownership; a larger share than the state relies on mobile data for home internet, especially in service gaps outside Greenville and along farm‑to‑market roads.
  • 65+: Ownership is measurably lower than younger cohorts, and this group is overrepresented in cellular‑only households when fixed broadband options are cost‑prohibitive or unavailable.
• Income
  • Low‑ and moderate‑income households show the highest cellular‑only dependence, with budget prepaid plans and hotspot use substituting for home broadband more often than the state average.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Black and Hispanic households in Hunt County exhibit higher mobile‑only and mobile‑first patterns than White non‑Hispanic households, mirroring state trends but at slightly higher levels due to local broadband availability and affordability constraints.
• Urban–rural split
  • Greenville and the I‑30 corridor: better 5G availability, higher average speeds, and greater use of postpaid unlimited plans.
  • Northeast and southern tracts: more LTE‑only pockets, higher latency, and greater reliance on fixed wireless or mobile hotspots for home connectivity.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage
  • All three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) provide countywide service; 5G is broadly available in Greenville, Commerce, Caddo Mills, and along I‑30, with LTE predominating in more remote census blocks.
  • Population coverage is high, but land‑area coverage includes notable weak‑signal pockets indoors and in low‑lying or wooded areas.
• Capacity and performance
  • Median download speeds cluster higher in Greenville/I‑30 5G zones and lower in outlying LTE areas; real‑world experience ranges from sub‑10 Mbps in fringe spots to 200+ Mbps on mid‑band 5G in town centers.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • The I‑30 corridor and Greenville host the densest backhaul, including fiber routes that anchor 5G capacity; performance drops with distance from these trunks.
• Alternatives and complements
  • Fixed wireless access (FWA) and WISPs fill in where cable/fiber are absent; mobile hotspots are a common substitute for home internet in several rural tracts.
  • Public Wi‑Fi and institutional coverage (schools/colleges in Commerce, libraries, municipal sites) mitigate access gaps but do not substantially change mobile reliance at home.

How Hunt County differs from Texas overall

• Higher cellular‑only reliance: A larger share of households uses cellular data as their primary or sole home internet connection than the statewide average.
• Slightly lower overall household connectivity: A smaller proportion of households has any internet subscription relative to Texas, tied to fixed broadband availability and affordability.
• More pronounced urban–rural performance gap: 5G capacity is concentrated along I‑30 and city centers, with LTE and weaker indoor coverage persisting in rural blocks, widening the intracoounty digital divide compared with more uniformly served metro counties.
• Plan mix: Greater prepaid and budget plan usage, reflecting local income distribution and coverage variability.

Sources and notes

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) S2801: Computer and Internet Use (latest available county and state estimates).
• FCC Mobile Deployment and Broadband Data Collection (2023–2024) for coverage and technology availability.
• Texas Broadband Development Office mapping and provider filings for fixed broadband/FWA presence.
• Aggregated speed-test intelligence (e.g., Ookla, OpenSignal) for performance characterization along the I‑30 corridor versus rural tracts.

These metrics indicate that mobile phones are the primary on‑ramp to the internet for a sizeable share of Hunt County residents, with infrastructure and affordability shaping usage patterns more strongly than in Texas as a whole.

Hunt County, TX social media snapshot (estimates reflect Pew Research Center 2023 U.S. usage rates adapted to the county’s rural/suburban profile and university presence in Commerce)

Overall reach

• About 80–85% of adults use at least one social platform regularly
• Mobile-first usage dominates; short‑form video is the primary content format

Most‑used platforms among local adults (estimated % of adults)

• YouTube: 83%
• Facebook: 72%
• Instagram: 47%
• TikTok: 33%
• Snapchat: 27%
• Pinterest: 32%
• LinkedIn: 25%
• X (Twitter): 20%
• Reddit: 18%
• Nextdoor: 12% (higher in newer subdivisions; lower in rural areas)

Age‑group patterns (share of adults in each age band using the platform; local rates mirror national)

• 18–29: YouTube ~93%, Instagram ~78%, TikTok ~62%, Snapchat ~65%, Facebook ~67%
• 30–49: YouTube ~92%, Facebook ~75%, Instagram ~49%, TikTok ~39%, Snapchat ~24%, LinkedIn ~36%
• 50–64: YouTube ~83%, Facebook ~73%, Instagram ~29%, TikTok ~24%
• 65+: YouTube ~60%, Facebook ~58%, Instagram ~15%, TikTok ~10%

Gender breakdown (approximate usage tendencies)

• Women over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest: Facebook women ~70% vs men ~61%; Instagram women ~50% vs men ~44%; Pinterest women ~50% vs men ~20%
• Men over‑index on YouTube, Reddit, X: YouTube men ~85% vs women ~80%; Reddit men ~26% vs women ~11%; X men ~25% vs women ~18%
• Snapchat and TikTok skew female but are widely used by younger men as well

Behavioral trends in Hunt County

• Facebook as the community hub: high engagement in buy/sell/trade groups, school and sports boosters, churches, public safety alerts, and local news (Greenville and Commerce)
• University effect (Texas A&M–Commerce): spikes in TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat around campus life, athletics, and nightlife; best performance for short, authentic video and Stories/Reels
• Marketplace and Groups drive local commerce: service providers, real estate, auto, and events lean on Facebook Pages + Groups + Messenger for lead gen
• Short‑form video outperforms static: Reels and TikTok lead for restaurants, events, and attractions; 6–20 second clips with captions and location tags earn the highest completion rates
• Timing: weekday early mornings, lunch, and 7–10 pm; strong weekend engagement; notable Friday night surges during high‑school football and seasonal sports
• Messaging is central: Messenger for families and community coordination; Snapchat for under‑30s; Instagram DMs for small‑business inquiries among younger users
• Nextdoor growth at the suburban fringe (Caddo Mills/Greenville outskirts): neighborhood services, HOA notices, and local contractor recommendations
• X (Twitter) remains niche: used mainly for sports, severe weather updates, and state/national news
• LinkedIn is modest but useful for educators, healthcare, logistics, and public‑sector roles; performs best for recruiting within Greenville and Commerce

Notes

• Figures are best‑available local estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2023 social media adoption rates, adjusted for Hunt County’s age mix (older‑leaning with a university pocket) and rural/suburban behaviors.