Johnson County

Johnson County, Texas — key demographics

Population

• 2023 population estimate: ~203,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program)
• 2020 Census: 179,927

Age

• Median age: ~36–37 years
• Under 18: ~26%
• 18 to 64: ~59–60%
• 65 and over: ~14–15%

Sex

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (Hispanic is an ethnicity; others shown non-Hispanic)

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~22%
• White (non-Hispanic): ~69%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~4%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native and other (non-Hispanic): ~1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~64,000
• Average household size: ~2.9
• Family households: ~74% of households; married-couple households ~55% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~35%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75%

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

Johnson County, TX — email usage snapshot

• Estimated email users: ~145,000 adults (≈90% of ≈161,000 adults; county population ≈200,000).
• Age distribution of email users: 18–34: 27% (39k); 35–54: 35% (51k); 55–64: 17% (25k); 65+: 21% (30k).
• Gender split: ~49% male, 51% female, mirroring county demographics.
• Digital access trends: About 92–94% of households have a computer/smartphone and 86–89% maintain a home broadband subscription; roughly 16–18% are mobile‑only internet households. Adult smartphone ownership is ~90%, and email remains one of the most universal online activities among adults.
• Local density/connectivity: ≈200k residents across 734 sq mi (270 residents per sq mi). Network coverage is densest in Cleburne, Burleson, and along I‑35W/US‑67 with multiple cable/fiber options; outlying southern and western areas rely more on fixed‑wireless or satellite. ≥95% of locations have access to at least 25/3 Mbps service, with expanding 5G along major corridors.

Notes: Email-user estimates combine Census/ACS population and broadband access with national adult email adoption benchmarks (Pew/FCC/ACS).

Johnson County, Texas — mobile phone usage snapshot (2023–2024)

Overall adoption and user estimates

• Adult smartphone adoption: approximately 88–92% of adults, modestly below the Texas average (~90–94%). This equates to roughly 120,000–140,000 adult smartphone users in the county.
• Household device profile (ACS-style definitions): about 90–94% of households have at least one smartphone; roughly 15–22% rely primarily or exclusively on a cellular data plan for home internet (versus about 12–18% statewide).
• Multiple-line prevalence: subscriptions exceed population (as elsewhere in Texas) because many residents carry work and personal lines; county penetration likely around 110–130 lines per 100 residents, tracking just under large-metro Texas rates.

Demographic patterns that differ from Texas overall

• Age
  • 18–34: near-universal smartphone ownership (≈97–99%), in line with Texas.
  • 35–64: high ownership (≈92–96%), slightly below big-metro Texas.
  • 65+: substantially lower ownership (≈65–75%), a few percentage points below the Texas senior average; this age group is more likely to use basic/older smartphones and rely on shared family plans.
• Income and education
  • Lower-income households show higher rates of mobile-only internet (cellular data but no fixed home broadband) by roughly 3–6 percentage points relative to Texas overall, reflecting exurban/rural broadband gaps and price sensitivity.
  • Prepaid plans are used more frequently than in the state’s large metros, consistent with cost control and credit constraints.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Hispanic and Black residents are more likely than White non-Hispanic residents to be smartphone-only for home access. In Johnson County, this contributes to a slightly higher overall mobile-only share than the statewide average even though the county is less urban.
• Work and commuting
  • A larger share of residents commute to the DFW core; mobile data use clusters along commuting corridors (I‑35W/US‑67), and daytime traffic boosts network load near Burleson, Joshua, Alvarado, and Cleburne more than in peer rural counties.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE is effectively countywide. Mid-band 5G (2.5 GHz on T‑Mobile; C‑band on AT&T and Verizon) covers most populated corridors and towns; south and west rural tracts still fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G more often than urban Texas.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Median mobile download speeds are generally below large-metro Texas norms because fewer cell sectors serve larger rural areas and mid-band 5G isn’t uniformly lit across the county. Expect strong mid-band 5G performance along I‑35W/US‑67 and in Burleson/Joshua/Cleburne, with speeds tapering in sparsely populated areas.
• Reliability
  • Outage sensitivity is higher outside the main corridors due to longer backhaul paths and fewer redundant sectors. Storm-related disruptions tend to clear faster near the I‑35W spine than in the southwest of the county.
• Home internet via mobile
  • Fixed wireless access (FWA) from T‑Mobile and Verizon has meaningful uptake, particularly in neighborhoods where wired broadband is limited or costly. This pushes the county’s mobile-only home internet share above the Texas average and is a key driver of heavier evening-hour cell-site loading in residential zones.
• Public safety and rural coverage
  • AT&T’s FirstNet presence strengthens coverage for first responders and incident management; this often brings ancillary capacity benefits for commercial users near added sites.

Key takeaways vs. Texas

• Smartphone ownership is high but a touch lower than the big-metro Texas average, almost entirely because senior adoption lags.
• Reliance on cellular data for primary home internet is notably higher than the statewide rate, driven by patchy wireline options in exurban and rural tracts and competitive FWA offers.
• 5G availability is good where people live and commute, but mid-band depth and sector density trail the largest Texas metros, yielding slightly lower median speeds and greater variability by location and time of day.
• Prepaid and budget-focused plans have higher share than in urban Texas, reflecting local income mix and price sensitivity.

Notes on sources and methodology

• Figures synthesize the latest publicly available American Community Survey device and subscription indicators, statewide usage research (e.g., Pew), and FCC coverage/performance datasets, mapped to county context. Estimates are rounded and presented as ranges to reflect year-to-year updates and within-county variation.

Johnson County, TX social media snapshot (2024–2025)

User stats

• Residents using social media: roughly 120,000–135,000 people locally. Basis: ACS population estimates for Johnson County (≈200k residents), ~72% of U.S. adults use at least one social platform (Pew 2024), and ~95% of teens (Pew 2023).
• Household connectivity: most households have internet and smartphone access; usage is predominantly mobile-first.
• Adult penetration benchmark: ~72% of adults use social media; teens are near-universal users.

Most‑used platforms (adult reach; estimated local share mapped from Pew 2024)

• YouTube: ~83% of adults
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• TikTok: ~33–35%
• Pinterest: ~35%
• Snapchat: ~27%
• X (Twitter): ~22%
• LinkedIn: ~22%
• WhatsApp: ~21%
• Nextdoor: ~15–20% (higher in suburban neighborhoods around Burleson/Crowley; lower in rural areas)

Age groups (what people use)

• Teens (13–17): Very high on YouTube (95%), TikTok (67%), Snapchat (59%), Instagram (62%); Facebook comparatively low (Pew 2023).
• 18–29: YouTube dominant (~90%+). Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are core; Facebook is used but not primary.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram has meaningful reach; TikTok growing.
• 50–64: Facebook first, YouTube second; lighter use of Instagram and TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook is the default; YouTube for news/how‑to and local content; minimal Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown (usage skews)

• Overall social media usage is near parity by gender.
• Platform skews: Pinterest strongly female; Instagram and TikTok slight female lean; Reddit and X male-leaning; Facebook modest female lean; LinkedIn near-balanced.

Behavioral trends observed locally (consistent with exurban North Texas patterns)

• Facebook Groups are the community hub: school districts and PTOs, youth sports, churches, city/county info, neighborhood watch, severe‑weather updates, and buy/sell/Marketplace drive recurring engagement.
• Local commerce is Facebook‑heavy: home services, auto, dining, boutiques use Facebook/Marketplace; Instagram for visuals; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) is rising for restaurants, events, and retail.
• Public sector uses Facebook first: city, county, ISDs, and public safety pages concentrate updates there, producing spikes during storms, road closures, and elections.
• Nextdoor is active in newer subdivisions; practical for HOA notices, lost/found, and contractor recommendations.
• Messaging is integral: Facebook Messenger (and WhatsApp among bilingual/Latino households) for appointment setting and customer service.
• Engagement timing: weekday evenings (7–10 pm CT) and weekend middays see the highest interaction; Marketplace browsing peaks evenings and Sundays.
• Content that performs: locally relevant video, photo carousels of inventory or projects, severe‑weather info, school/event calendars, and “before/after” service posts; overtly political content can spike but is volatile.

Notes on method

• Percentages come from Pew Research Center (2023–2024) U.S. usage rates by platform and age; local counts are modeled by applying those rates to Johnson County’s population profile from recent ACS estimates.