Jeff Davis County

Jeff Davis County, Texas — key demographics (most recent official data)

Population size

• 1,996 (2020 Census)
• 2,000 residents; extremely low density (0.9 persons/sq. mile)

Age

• Median age: ~52 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Age distribution (ACS 2019–2023):
  • Under 18: ~18%
  • 18 to 64: ~52%
  • 65 and over: ~30%
• Skews older than Texas and U.S. averages

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (2020 Census; Hispanic can be any race)

• Hispanic or Latino: ~45%
• White (non-Hispanic): ~52%
• Black (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Two or more/other (non-Hispanic): ~1%

Households and housing (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~930
• Average household size: ~2.1
• Family households: ~60%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~80%
• Median household income (2022 dollars): ~$60K
• Per capita income: ~$35K
• Persons in poverty: ~12%

Insights

• Very small, aging population with a near-even gender split
• Racial/ethnic makeup is primarily non-Hispanic White and Hispanic
• Household sizes are small and homeownership is high, typical of rural West Texas counties

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program)

Jeff Davis County, TX email usage snapshot:

• Population 1,996; land area 2,265 sq mi; density ~0.9 persons/sq mi; ~930 households.
• Estimated email users: ~1,600 countywide (≈80% of residents; ≈92% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users: 13–17 ~70 (4%); 18–34 ~240 (15%); 35–54 ~500 (31%); 55–64 ~320 (20%); 65+ ~470 (30%).
• Gender split among users: ~51% male (≈820), 49% female (≈780).

Digital access and trends:

• About 75–80% of households have a fixed broadband subscription; 10% are smartphone‑only; 12–15% have no home internet. Email adoption tracks broadband growth and is near‑universal among connected adults.
• Extremely low population density and long distances drive higher deployment costs and slower upgrades than urban Texas, keeping speeds and plan choices limited outside town centers.
• Wireline broadband (including some fiber) is concentrated in and around Fort Davis; satellite and fixed‑wireless fill gaps elsewhere.
• Mobile coverage is strongest along TX‑17/118 and US‑90 corridors; remote ranchlands experience weaker service.
• Public Wi‑Fi at schools, the library, and community facilities remains an important on‑ramp for residents without reliable home service.

Mobile phone usage in Jeff Davis County, Texas (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)

County baseline

• Population: 1,996 (2020 Census)
• Land area: about 2,265 square miles; population density ≈0.9 people per square mile (among the lowest in Texas)
• Demographics: older-skewing age profile and a sizable Hispanic/Latino community; very small Black and Asian populations

User estimates (modeled from 2020 Census counts and rural/older ownership rates from recent Pew Research)

• Residents using any mobile phone: ≈1,650 (about 83% of the total population)
• Smartphone users: ≈1,400 (about 70% of the population)
• 5G‑capable smartphone users: ≈1,000 (about 50% of the population; many devices are 5G‑ready even where 5G coverage is limited)

How usage differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration: County adult smartphone adoption is roughly 8–15 percentage points below the Texas adult average (Texas adults are near 88–90%; Jeff Davis skews lower due to age and coverage).
• More voice/text–only lines: A noticeably higher share of active lines in the county are basic phones or smartphones used primarily for voice/SMS, reflecting older demographics and patchy data coverage.
• Greater reliance on mobile as primary internet: Because wired broadband is sparse outside Fort Davis, a larger share of households depend on mobile hotspots or smartphone tethering than the Texas average.
• Coverage and speeds are far more variable: Large mountain areas lack reliable signal; even where service exists, LTE/5G performance is modest compared with urban Texas.

Demographic breakdown of usage (estimates)

• Ages 18–34 (≈15% of residents): ~95% smartphone ownership; ≈285 smartphone users
• Ages 35–64 (≈45%): ~85% smartphone ownership; ≈765 smartphone users
• Ages 65+ (≈25%): ~60–65% smartphone ownership; ≈310–325 smartphone users
• Hispanic/Latino residents (roughly one‑third of the population): ownership rates are similar to the county average, but smartphone‑only internet access is more common than among white non‑Hispanic residents, due to cost and limited wired options in outlying areas.
• Children/teens (under 18, ≈20%): phone access is common in older teens; effective coverage constraints mean device use often centers on Wi‑Fi where available.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Carriers present: AT&T (including FirstNet for public safety) and Verizon provide the most usable coverage; T‑Mobile presence is limited and discontinuous.
• Technology mix: 4G LTE is the baseline. Low‑band 5G exists primarily in and around Fort Davis and along the main corridors (TX‑17/TX‑118). Mid‑band 5G is rare; mmWave is effectively absent.
• Coverage gaps: The Davis Mountains’ terrain creates extensive dead zones—especially along and beyond the TX‑166 Scenic Loop, in canyons, and on remote ranch roads. Indoor coverage can be weak even in town without Wi‑Fi calling.
• Typical performance (where service is available): LTE downlink often 5–25 Mbps; low‑band 5G typically 20–80 Mbps. Performance degrades rapidly with terrain obstruction and distance to towers.
• Backhaul/resiliency: Limited fiber and microwave backhaul in the region means fewer redundant paths; outages (weather, fiber cuts, wildfires) can produce multi‑hour impacts compared with urban Texas where networks are more meshed.
• Local wired options: Big Bend Telephone/BBT has deployed fiber in parts of Fort Davis; outside the town core, residents frequently rely on legacy DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite (Starlink and others). This pushes more data demand onto mobile networks than is typical in most Texas counties.
• Public safety: FirstNet adoption improves coverage for EMS/law enforcement on the main routes, but off‑route coverage remains constrained by topography and tower spacing.

Key takeaways

• Roughly 1,650 residents in Jeff Davis County use mobile phones, about 1,400 use smartphones, and about 1,000 have 5G‑capable devices, but real‑world 5G availability is limited to a few corridors.
• The county’s extremely low density and mountainous terrain lead to far more coverage gaps, lower median speeds, and higher reliance on mobile hotspots than Texas overall.
• An older age profile pulls down smartphone adoption and increases voice/SMS‑centric usage compared with statewide norms.
• Fiber is present in Fort Davis, but sparse elsewhere; this structural gap drives heavier mobile data reliance than in most Texas counties.

Jeff Davis County, TX — Social media usage snapshot (2025, modeled from recent Pew Research platform data and ACS age/sex mix for the county)

Overall usage

• Adult population (18+): ≈1,650
• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈1,100 (≈66% of adults)
• Household internet subscription (broadband or cellular): ≈80%

User mix

• Gender among social media users: ≈51% women, 49% men
• Age distribution of users:
  • 18–29: ≈14%
  • 30–49: ≈28%
  • 50–64: ≈27%
  • 65+: ≈31%

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users; multi-platform use is common)

• YouTube: ≈80%
• Facebook: ≈74%
• Instagram: ≈36%
• Pinterest: ≈26%
• TikTok: ≈24%
• WhatsApp: ≈24%
• Snapchat: ≈14%
• X (Twitter): ≈12%
• Reddit: ≈10%
• LinkedIn: ≈10%
• Nextdoor: ≈8%

Behavioral trends and local nuances

• Facebook-centric community life: Local news, school updates, events, buy/sell, and civic conversations run primarily through Facebook Pages and Groups; Marketplace is the default for classifieds.
• Video-first but practical: YouTube dominates for how‑to content, home/ranch upkeep, vehicle repair, astronomy/space content tied to McDonald Observatory, and local event recaps.
• Messaging for families: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are key for family coordination and bilingual (English/Spanish) communication; WhatsApp groups are common in Hispanic households.
• Older‑leaning engagement: A sizable 65+ cohort is active on Facebook and YouTube, engaging more with local announcements than with creator-style content; sharing and commenting outperform posting original content.
• Younger cohort split: 18–29s concentrate on Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat for short‑form video and Stories; they rely less on Facebook except for events and Marketplace.
• Timing: Engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.), midday (noon hour), and evenings (8–10 p.m.). Weekends skew toward event and marketplace activity; weekday mornings favor news and civic posts.
• Connectivity-aware behavior: Rural coverage gaps encourage lighter media (photos, short vertical video). Posts with clear headlines, location tags, and essential details outperform long text.
• Tourism spillover: Seasonal traffic (Fort Davis, scenic loop, astronomy events) boosts Instagram/TikTok geotagged content and YouTube searches for itineraries and “what to do” guides.

Note on methodology: Figures are modeled estimates tuned to Jeff Davis County’s older, rural age profile using recent U.S. platform usage benchmarks; they reflect likely local adoption patterns rather than a county-specific survey census.