King County

King County, Texas — key demographics

• Population size

  • 265 (2020 Census)
  • 263 (2023 Census estimate)

• Age (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Median age: ~41
  • Under 18: ~23%
  • 18–64: ~57%
  • 65 and over: ~20%

• Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Male: ~55%
  • Female: ~45%

• Race and Hispanic origin (2020 Census unless noted)

  • White alone: ~90%
  • White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~68%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~23–24%
  • Black or African American alone: ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
  • Asian alone: <1%
  • Two or more races: ~7–8%

• Households and housing (2020 Census; ACS 2018–2022)

  • Total households: ~100–105
  • Families: ~70–75
  • Average household size: ~2.5–2.6
  • Owner-occupied share: ~80%
  • Renter-occupied share: ~20%

Notes

• Figures from ACS for such a small population have high margins of error; use trends and shares as indicative rather than precise point estimates.

King County, TX — Email usage and digital access snapshot

• Population and density: 265 residents (2020 Census) across ~913 sq mi; ~0.29 people per sq mi, among the lowest in the U.S. County seat: Guthrie.
• Estimated email users: ≈185 adult email users. Method: 75% of residents are adults (200 people) and ~92% of U.S. adults use email (Pew Research).
• Age distribution (population): Approximately 25% under 18, 55% ages 18–64, 20% 65+. Skews older than the Texas average, which typically dampens daily email usage among seniors but not overall adoption.
• Gender split: Modest male majority (about 54% male, 46% female), consistent with ranching-dominated rural counties.
• Digital access trends:
  • Fixed broadband availability/subscription is below state averages due to extremely low dwelling density and long last-mile distances; satellite and fixed wireless are important complements.
  • Mobile-first behavior is common; many residents access email primarily via smartphones.
  • Adoption is steady but constrained by infrastructure costs; younger and working-age adults show the highest daily use, with seniors participating at lower rates.

Sources informing estimates: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; county area), Pew Research Center (adult email adoption).

Mobile phone usage in King County, Texas — summary with local estimates, demographics, and infrastructure, highlighting how it differs from Texas overall

Snapshot

• Population: 265 residents (2020 Decennial Census) across roughly 913 square miles; density ≈0.29 people per square mile. This is one of the sparsest counties in Texas and the U.S.
• Settlement pattern: Single unincorporated hub (Guthrie) with very large ranchlands and long highway stretches (notably US-82 and SH-6).

Estimated mobile user base

• Total mobile phone users (all cellphones, not just smartphones): approximately 200–230 residents. This range applies national and rural adoption rates to the county’s small population and aligns with near-universal cellphone adoption among U.S. adults, with some under-18s and seniors unconnected.
• Estimated smartphone users: approximately 150–180 residents. This aligns with rural smartphone adoption in the upper 70s to low 80s percent among adults, adjusted to the county’s age profile.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): likely a majority locally, but somewhat lower than the Texas statewide share. Texas overall is high for cellular-only households (roughly three-quarters in recent national health survey data), while very rural counties with patchy coverage tend to trail that statewide average slightly due to reliability concerns and legacy landline retention.

Demographic context relevant to usage

• Very small, older-leaning population: a higher share of residents are 55+ compared with Texas overall, which reduces smartphone penetration and app intensity versus metro Texas.
• Race/ethnicity: predominantly non-Hispanic White with a smaller Hispanic/Latino share than the Texas average. Small absolute counts for other groups. This matters for device preference and plan types less than age and income in this market, but it does influence language needs for outreach, which skew primarily English.
• Household structure: many ranch and dispersed households; student population is small and concentrated around the single K–12 campus in Guthrie, where school Wi‑Fi fills gaps for youth data usage.

Digital infrastructure and coverage characteristics

• Cellular footprint
  • Coverage is concentrated along US-82 and SH-6 and in/near Guthrie, with large gaps across ranchlands. Signal quality falls off rapidly off-corridor.
  • 4G LTE is the baseline. Low-band 5G may be present from major carriers along corridors, but mid-band 5G coverage is sparse, and capacity depends heavily on backhaul.
  • Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) typically prioritizes highway and community nodes in counties like King; this improves emergency and school communications but does not eliminate dead zones.
• Backhaul and middle mile
  • Limited fiber routes and heavy reliance on microwave backhaul outside the hub areas constrain peak throughput even where radio signal is adequate.
  • School and county facilities are more likely to have dedicated fiber or high-capacity circuits than surrounding residences.
• Home and on-premise connectivity
  • Fixed wireless and satellite internet play outsized roles for ranches and remote residences; external antennas and boosters are common for dependable voice/SMS and hotspot data.
  • Wi‑Fi calling is a practical necessity indoors for many homes and small businesses.
• Tower siting
  • A small number of macro sites serve the county; terrain and very long sector footprints mean fewer sectors per user but longer distances between sites, which limits speeds and in-building penetration.

How King County differs from Texas overall

• Adoption vs. device mix
  • Texas statewide smartphone and unlimited-data plan adoption is very high; King County’s adoption remains high for basic cellular but modestly lower for smartphones due to age profile and coverage constraints.
• Network experience
  • Texas metros increasingly enjoy mid-band 5G with 100+ Mbps median speeds; King County users more often experience LTE or low-band 5G with variable speeds and frequent handoffs to 3GPP fallback or no service in outlying areas.
• Reliability strategies
  • Statewide, many households are comfortably wireless-only; in King County, more households retain a landline alternative, maintain satellite or fixed wireless backups, use Wi‑Fi calling, and carry vehicle boosters for travel between ranch sites.
• Rollout priority
  • Carriers prioritize urban and suburban Texas for mid-band 5G and fiber backhaul. King County upgrades lag, arriving later and primarily along highways and public-safety corridors rather than uniformly countywide.

Actionable implications

• User base size: plan for roughly 150–180 smartphone users and 200–230 total mobile users countywide at any given time, with usage heavily clustered in Guthrie and along US-82/SH-6.
• Product and support: emphasize devices and plans that work well on low-band coverage, Wi‑Fi calling support, and external antenna/hotspot options. SMS and voice remain critical for reach.
• Infrastructure opportunities: targeted small-cell or repeater deployments at community anchors (school, courthouse, EMS) and along undercovered highway segments yield outsized benefits; improving fiber or microwave backhaul to existing sites can materially raise user experience without new macro builds.
• Outreach timing and channels: because mid-band 5G buildouts lag, avoid assuming metro-grade streaming or app performance; provide offline-capable and low-bandwidth options for services and public communications.

Social media usage in King County, TX (modeled 2025 snapshot)

Baseline

• Population: 265 (2020 Census). Adults (18+): approximately 215–220.
• Adult social media penetration: about 78–82% of adults ≈ 170–180 users.
• Connectivity context: Rural, low-density coverage; smartphone is the primary device for most users, with roughly one-fifth to one-quarter likely smartphone-only.

Most-used platforms among adult social media users in the county (share of users; multi-platform use means totals exceed 100%)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 40–45%
• TikTok: 28–35%
• Snapchat: 25–30%
• Pinterest: 30–40%
• LinkedIn: 20–25%
• X (Twitter): 18–24%
• Reddit: 18–22%
• WhatsApp: 18–24%
• Nextdoor: <10% (sparse neighborhoods limit utility)

Age groups (estimated adoption of at least one social platform among residents by age)

• 18–29: ~90–95%
• 30–49: ~84–88%
• 50–64: ~72–76%
• 65+: ~45–50%

Gender breakdown

• Overall user base is roughly balanced male/female; platform skews mirror national patterns:
  • Female-leaning: Pinterest (strong), Instagram and Snapchat (moderate), TikTok (slight to moderate).
  • Male-leaning: Reddit and X (Twitter).
  • Balanced: YouTube; Facebook skews older and is near-balanced.

Behavioral trends

• Community and commerce: Facebook Groups/Pages and Marketplace are central for local news, school/sports updates, ranching/ag info, buying/selling equipment and vehicles.
• Content patterns: Heavy YouTube use for how-to/repair, ranching/agriculture, hunting/outdoors, weather; Facebook for local announcements and events; Instagram/TikTok for short-form entertainment among younger residents.
• Posting/engagement cadence: Peaks early morning and evenings; weekend spikes for Marketplace; seasonal bumps around school activities, harvest, and hunting seasons.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is common; SMS ubiquitous; WhatsApp used within extended families and for cross-border/long-distance ties.
• Bandwidth-shaped behavior: Preference for short videos, downloaded or lower-resolution playback; fewer long live streams.
• News consumption: Regional outlets (e.g., Lubbock/Abilene media) discovered via Facebook shares and YouTube clips; direct app use is less common.
• Advertising implications: Keep geo-radius wide; anchor creative in practical value (deals, availability, local relevance); mobile-first formats; leverage Facebook Groups/Marketplace and YouTube pre-roll; interest targeting around agriculture, hunting, trucks/ATVs, high school sports.

Method and sources

• Figures are modeled for King County’s small population using U.S. Census 2020 population, Pew Research Center Social Media Use (2024) platform adoption rates, and rural Texas usage patterns; platform percentages reflect share of adult social media users in the county.