Lamb County

Lamb County, Texas — key demographics (latest official U.S. Census Bureau data)

Population size

• 13,045 (2020 Decennial Census)
• ~12.9k (2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~36 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~27%
• 18 to 64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~16%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (Hispanic can be of any race)

• Hispanic or Latino: ~58%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~35%
• Black or African American (NH): ~3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (NH): ~1%
• Asian (NH): <1%
• Two or more races/Other (NH): ~3%

Households and families

• Households: ~4.5k
• Average household size: ~2.8 persons
• Family households: ~72% of households
• Married-couple households: ~49% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~37%
• Housing tenure: ~69% owner-occupied, ~31% renter-occupied

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data) and 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Lamb County, TX snapshot (est. 2024)

• Population and density: ≈12,900 residents across ~1,018 sq mi (≈13 people/sq mi), strongly rural.
• Estimated email users: ≈8,400 people (≈65% of total; ≈90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–34: ≈2,600 users (~31%)
  • 35–64: ≈4,300 users (~51%)
  • 65+: ≈1,500 users (~18%)
• Gender split among email users: roughly even (≈50% female, ≈50% male); usage rates differ by <2 percentage points.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Internet access: about 4 in 5 households have an internet subscription; roughly two-thirds have fixed broadband, with notable gaps outside towns.
  • Smartphone-only households: ~12–15%, indicating many residents rely on mobile data for email.
  • Older adults (65+) lag but are adopting steadily; middle-aged adults are the heaviest users.
  • Mobile access is the primary growth channel for email usage; fixed broadband expansion remains incremental in sparsely populated areas.

Notes: Estimates blend local demographics with recent ACS internet-subscription data for rural Texas and national email adoption rates by age. The county’s low population density and farm-to-market settlement pattern constrain fixed-network economics, reinforcing mobile-first email access.

Mobile phone usage in Lamb County, Texas — 2025 snapshot

County context

• Population base: roughly 12.8–13.1k residents, with an older age profile and lower median household income than the Texas average. The county is majority Hispanic, centered on Littlefield and Olton, with extensive rural/agricultural areas.

User estimates

• Unique mobile phone users: ~9.8–10.4k residents (about 76–80% of the total population, including youth), reflecting strong mobile reliance despite rural constraints.
• Active lines: ~12–14k, as multi-line families, work lines, and agricultural IoT/M2M connections lift lines above unique-user counts.

Demographic breakdown of users (share of local users)

• By age
  • 13–17: 8–9% of users; mobile adoption is very high in this group (near-ubiquitous among those with personal devices).
  • 18–34: 22–24% of users; near-ubiquitous smartphone adoption.
  • 35–64: 42–45% of users; high smartphone adoption with some basic-phone retention for work/voice-first use.
  • 65+: 22–25% of users; adoption trails state levels, with a higher share of basic/feature phones than urban Texas.
• By race/ethnicity (reflecting county composition and usage)
  • Hispanic/Latino: 50–58% of users
  • White, non-Hispanic: 35–42%
  • Black: 1–3%
  • Other (Native, Asian, multiracial): 3–5%
• By plan and device
  • Plan type: prepaid ≈ 45–55% (notably higher than Texas overall), postpaid ≈ 45–55%.
  • Device mix: smartphones ≈ 85–90% of users; basic/feature phones ≈ 10–15% (skews older and work-focused).
  • OS: Android ≈ 60–70%; iOS ≈ 30–40% (Android share is higher than the state average).
• Internet reliance
  • Mobile-only households (using cellular as primary home internet): ≈ 22–28%, materially above the statewide rate, driven by patchy fixed broadband and cost sensitivity.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers present: AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon provide countywide service; MVNOs ride these networks. No single carrier dominates, and users commonly choose based on farm-to-market road coverage.
• Network generations
  • 4G LTE: effectively universal across populated areas, with performance dips on low-traffic rural roads and fields.
  • 5G low-band: broad population coverage in/around Littlefield, Olton, and along US‑84/US‑385; reaches many rural blocks but with variable throughput.
  • 5G mid-band (C-band/n41): concentrated near town centers and major corridors; limited rural penetration to date.
• Performance profile
  • Typical LTE speeds range from low double digits in outer rural zones to higher double digits in town; 5G mid-band delivers markedly higher peaks where available.
  • Uplink performance and in-building penetration are stronger where low-band spectrum dominates; mid-band brings higher capacity but is more geographically constrained than in metro Texas.
• Sites/backhaul
  • Dozens of registered macro sites serve the county, supplemented by sectorized antennas along transportation corridors; fiber backhaul is strongest along US‑84 with microwave backhaul common in outlying sectors.
• Fixed wireless and IoT
  • 4G/5G fixed wireless (notably from T-Mobile, and selectively from AT&T/Verizon) is available in and near towns and along corridors, filling gaps where cable/fiber are absent.
  • Agricultural telemetry (pivots, soil sensors, asset tracking) contributes a visible share of M2M lines, raising total SIMs per resident above user counts.

How Lamb County differs from state-level trends

• Higher prepaid share: A materially larger portion of users opt for prepaid/value plans than the Texas average, reflecting price sensitivity and flexible needs.
• Greater mobile-only reliance: A higher share of households rely on cellular for primary home internet due to sparse fiber/cable outside town centers.
• Lower iPhone share, higher Android share: Cost-conscious device mix differs from metro Texas, where iOS penetration runs higher.
• Older-user gap: Seniors are less likely to carry smartphones than the statewide senior population, and basic phones remain more common.
• Coverage pattern: 4G is widespread, but 5G mid-band capacity is geographically patchier than in Texas metros; users see bigger step-ups in town than in fields.
• Usage composition: More SIMs tied to agriculture and light industry (M2M) than the state average, nudging line counts above what user totals alone would suggest.

Bottom line

• Lamb County’s mobile market is defined by near-universal 4G coverage, expanding but selective 5G capacity, a budget-leaning device and plan mix, and above-average dependence on cellular for primary internet. These factors make the county more prepaid-heavy, Android-skewed, and mobile-only than Texas overall, with performance and 5G capacity strongest in Littlefield/Olton and along the main highways, and more variability on rural roads and farm tracts.

Lamb County, TX social media snapshot (2025; modeled from latest Census age/sex structure and Pew Research adult/teen platform adoption; counts rounded)

Overall usage

• Estimated social media users (residents 13+): ~8.6k–9.0k (≈76–80% of residents 13+; ≈66–70% of total population)
• Daily users: ~5.7k–6.2k (roughly two-thirds of social users)
• Device: >90% mobile-led use; video is the dominant content format

Age breakdown of social users (share of social users; totals ≈100%)

• 13–17: ~9%
• 18–34: ~30%
• 35–54: ~30%
• 55+: ~31%

Gender breakdown

• Social users: ≈51% female, 49% male
• Platform skews: women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, X (Twitter), and Reddit

Most-used platforms in Lamb County (share of social users, monthly)

• YouTube: ~84%
• Facebook: ~65%
• Instagram: ~48%
• TikTok: ~36%
• Pinterest: ~34%
• Snapchat: ~30%
• X (Twitter): ~22%
• WhatsApp: ~22% overall; higher among Spanish-speaking and Hispanic households
• Reddit: ~19% Top tier locally: YouTube and Facebook (broad, cross‑age reach). Growth tier: Instagram and TikTok (younger and middle-aged adults). Utility tier: Pinterest (women/households), Snapchat (teens/young adults), WhatsApp (bilingual family and community ties), X/Reddit (niche/news/tech).

Behavioral trends observed in rural West Texas communities of similar size (applicable to Lamb County)

• Community-first Facebook: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups and Marketplace for local news, school athletics, church events, fundraisers, lost/found pets, and buy/sell/trade. County and city notices see high engagement during weather and public-safety events.
• Video-forward consumption: YouTube for how‑to, ag/ranch content, equipment repair, hunting/fishing, and high school sports highlights; TikTok/shorts for quick tips and entertainment. Limited broadband in some areas pushes shorter videos and downloads for offline viewing.
• Messaging and bilingual ties: Messenger and WhatsApp used for family coordination and cross‑border communication; Spanish/English content both see traction. Local businesses benefit from bilingual posts.
• Youth patterns: Teens prioritize Snapchat (streaks/DMs), TikTok creation/consumption, and Instagram DMs; Facebook mainly for group access tied to school or sports.
• Older adults: Facebook is primary; YouTube for DIY/health/faith content; lower but rising TikTok adoption driven by entertainment and family sharing.
• Posting cadence and peaks: Most residents post weekly or less; engagement peaks evenings and weekends, with spikes around Friday night sports, weather alerts, and community emergencies.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the default classifieds channel; Instagram Shops and short‑form video aid small business discovery. Local radius targeting (10–25 miles) on FB/IG is especially effective.
• Trust and moderation: Information trust skews toward known local voices (coaches, pastors, county offices). Admin‑moderated groups maintain norms; rumor correction occurs quickly in established groups.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are planning-grade estimates produced by weighting Pew platform adoption rates for U.S. adults (2024) and teens (2023) to Lamb County’s age/sex profile from the U.S. Census Bureau (ACS). Percentages reflect share of social media users unless otherwise noted.