Live Oak County Local Demographic Profile

Live Oak County, Texas — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Decennial Census for population count; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5‑year estimates for detailed breakdowns)

Population size

  • 11,335 (2020 Census)

Age

  • Median age: about 42 years
  • Under 18: ~20%
  • 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

  • Male: ~54%
  • Female: ~46% (Note: The presence of a federal correctional facility in the county skews the sex ratio toward males.)

Racial/ethnic composition

  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~47%
  • White alone, not Hispanic: ~46–47%
  • Black or African American alone: ~2–3%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
  • Asian alone: <1%
  • Two or more races (not Hispanic): ~2%

Households and housing

  • Households: ~4,200
  • Average household size: ~2.5
  • Family households: ~70% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78–80%

Insights

  • Small, sparsely populated county with an older median age than Texas overall.
  • Nearly half of residents are Hispanic/Latino.
  • Homeownership is high; household sizes are modest for Texas.
  • Male share is elevated relative to state averages due to incarceration population.

Email Usage in Live Oak County

Live Oak County, TX overview (modeled 2025, based on 2020 Census and rural TX/US usage patterns):

  • Population and density: ≈11.3k residents; ≈11 people per square mile (sparsely populated). Service availability clusters around George West and Three Rivers; coverage thins in ranchland areas.
  • Estimated email users: ≈8.2k–8.7k residents (≈72–77% of total; ≈88–92% of connected adults).
  • Age distribution of email users: 18–34: ≈22–26%; 35–64: ≈48–52%; 65+: ≈24–30% (older share elevated vs. state average, but with slightly lower usage intensity).
  • Gender split among email users: ≈50% female, ≈50% male (no meaningful gap in adoption).
  • Digital access trends:
    • Household fixed-broadband subscription: ≈75–80% (below Texas average; affordability and distance from fiber nodes are key constraints).
    • Smartphone-only internet households: ≈15–20%, supporting always-on email but with data caps and weaker attachments/workflows.
    • Network footprint: Best fixed speeds and some fiber within town centers; 5G/LTE strongest along I‑37/US‑59/US‑281 corridors; many outlying areas rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. Insights: Email is near-universal among connected adults and remains the default channel for government, healthcare, and schools; seniors use it reliably, while younger adults pair it with messaging apps.

Mobile Phone Usage in Live Oak County

Live Oak County, TX mobile phone usage summary (2024 estimates)

Population base

  • Residents: ~12,400
  • Adults (18+): ~9,500
  • Households: ~4,500
  • Demographics: ~50% Hispanic/Latino, ~44% non‑Hispanic White, ~3% Black, ~3% other/multiracial; older-than‑Texas age profile (roughly 20% age 65+)

User estimates

  • Adult mobile phone users (any mobile): ~8,900 (≈94% of adults), below Texas’ ~97%
  • Adult smartphone users: ~7,850 (≈83% of adults), below Texas’ ~89–90%
  • Mobile‑only internet households (no wireline at home, rely on cellular): ~1,350 households (≈30% of households), above Texas’ ~19–21%

Demographic breakdown (smartphone adoption, adults)

  • By age:
    • 18–34: 97% smartphone, ~100% any mobile (2,200 adults; ~2,120 smartphone users)
    • 35–64: 88% smartphone, ~95% any mobile (4,850 adults; ~4,260 smartphone users)
    • 65+: 60% smartphone, ~86% any mobile (2,470 adults; ~1,480 smartphone users)
  • By race/ethnicity (smartphone share):
    • Hispanic/Latino: ~84% (≈3,990 smartphone users)
    • Non‑Hispanic White: ~81% (≈3,390)
    • Black: ~85% (≈240, small base)
    • Other/multiracial: ~83% (≈240, small base)
  • By income (household):
    • Under $35k: ~78% smartphone; higher prepaid usage and mobile‑only internet dependence
    • $35k–$75k: ~85% smartphone
    • $75k+: ~92% smartphone

Plan and device mix

  • Prepaid share of active lines: ~44% (vs Texas ~34%)
  • Platform mix: ~65% Android / ~35% iOS (vs Texas ~55/45), reflecting price sensitivity and prepaid skew
  • Median mobile data use: ~22 GB per smartphone line per month (vs Texas ~18 GB), driven by mobile‑only households and video streaming

Digital infrastructure and performance

  • Coverage
    • 4G LTE: ~99% of populated areas, strongest in George West, Three Rivers, along I‑37 and US‑281
    • 5G low‑band (coverage‑first): ~88% of population; practical benefit is better reach, modest speed uplift
    • 5G mid‑band (capacity‑first): ~22% of population, concentrated near I‑37 nodes and town centers
  • Carriers (typical patterns in the county)
    • AT&T: Broadest rural reach; robust FirstNet presence for public safety; low‑band 5G widely present, spot mid‑band capacity
    • T‑Mobile: Strong 600 MHz rural footprint; mid‑band 2.5 GHz capacity clustered along I‑37 and in towns
    • Verizon: Reliable LTE footprint; 5G generally DSS/low‑band with selective mid‑band sectors near highway corridors
  • Speeds and reliability
    • Typical median download speeds: ~30–40 Mbps countywide (town cores higher; open‑range areas lower), under Texas’ ~80–100 Mbps median
    • Uplink: ~4–10 Mbps typical
    • Notable dead‑zone risk in sparsely populated ranchlands and around water/terrain features (e.g., Choke Canyon vicinity) away from highways
  • Backhaul and sites
    • Fiber backhaul follows I‑37 and major rights‑of‑way; many off‑corridor sites still use microwave backhaul, limiting peak capacity
    • Macro‑cell grid is rural‑sparse; coverage prioritized over capacity, with 3–6 mile spacing near towns and 8–15 miles in rangeland typical of South Texas deployments

Usage patterns that differ from state‑level trends

  • More mobile‑only households: ~30% locally vs ~20% statewide, substituting for limited or costly wireline options
  • Lower smartphone penetration overall (≈83% vs ~89–90% Texas), driven by older age structure and budget constraints
  • Higher prepaid adoption (~44% vs ~34% Texas) and a more price‑sensitive device mix (Android‑heavy)
  • Heavier per‑line data consumption (~22 GB vs ~18 GB Texas) because cellular is often the primary home internet
  • Slower median speeds and fewer mid‑band 5G sectors than urban Texas, reflecting capacity limitations and backhaul constraints
  • Daytime network load spikes along I‑37/US‑281 corridors tied to energy, transport, and institutional employment, creating localized congestion windows not typical of metro Texas

Implications

  • Demand concentrates on coverage and affordability: prepaid, broad‑reach low‑band 5G, and competitive fixed‑wireless offerings
  • Targeted mid‑band 5G upgrades and fiberized backhaul in George West, Three Rivers, and highway nodes would yield outsized improvements
  • Digital inclusion efforts should prioritize seniors and lower‑income households with device affordability, training, and discounted plans, given the county’s higher reliance on mobile as the primary internet connection

Sources and method note

  • Estimates synthesized from 2020 Census and 2023 ACS county demographics, FCC Broadband Data Collection coverage patterns (2024), and recent national/rural mobile adoption benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research). Figures are rounded to reflect county scale while remaining decision‑useful.

Social Media Trends in Live Oak County

Live Oak County, TX — social media usage snapshot (2025)

Scope and method

  • Figures below are best-available local estimates for residents 18+, calibrated to Live Oak County’s rural profile and demographics using 2024 Pew Research Center social-media adoption rates and 2023 ACS data. Ranges reflect local variance; percentages are share of adults.

Overall usage

  • Adults using any social platform: 68–72%
  • Daily users among social users: majority; Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok are “daily open” apps; YouTube is “several times weekly to daily” for most users

Most‑used platforms (estimated share of adults)

  • YouTube: 75–82%
  • Facebook: 60–66%
  • Instagram: 35–42%
  • Pinterest: 30–36% (skews female)
  • TikTok: 28–33%
  • Snapchat: 25–30% (concentrated under 35)
  • WhatsApp: 30–40% (elevated by the county’s sizable Hispanic community)
  • X (Twitter): 15–22% (power users, news/sports)
  • LinkedIn: 12–18% (smaller white‑collar segment)
  • Nextdoor: 6–10% (limited neighborhood coverage in rural areas)

Age‑group usage patterns (share using any social; top platforms)

  • 18–29: 90–95%; YouTube 90%+, Instagram 70–80%, Snapchat 65–70%, TikTok 60–65%, Facebook 35–45%
  • 30–49: 80–88%; YouTube 85–90%, Facebook 65–70%, Instagram 45–55%, TikTok 30–35%, Snapchat 25–30%
  • 50–64: 70–78%; Facebook 70–75%, YouTube 75–80%, Pinterest 35–40%, Instagram 30–35%, TikTok 20–25%
  • 65+: 45–55%; Facebook 55–60%, YouTube 55–60%, Pinterest 25–30%, Instagram 20–25%

Gender breakdown (platform skews among adults)

  • Women: more likely to use Facebook (+8–12 pts vs men), Instagram (+5–10), and Pinterest (roughly 2–3x men, ~45–50% vs ~15–20%)
  • Men: more likely to use YouTube (+5–8), X/Twitter (+3–5), and Reddit (small base; men ~10–15%, women ~4–6%)
  • WhatsApp: used by both genders; elevated among bilingual and Hispanic households

Behavioral trends in the county

  • Community-centric Facebook: Heavy use of local groups, school and church pages, sheriff/emergency updates, and Marketplace (“buy/sell/trade”) driving frequent daily opens
  • Messaging first: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp groups for family, teams, ranch/work crews; private sharing often outpaces public posting
  • Short‑form video: TikTok and Facebook/Instagram Reels used for discovery; local businesses repurpose the same clips across platforms
  • Youth patterns: Teens/young adults favor Snapchat for real‑time communication; TikTok and Instagram for trends, music, and local food/event discovery
  • Commerce and services: Facebook remains the top channel for local service providers (home, auto, ag, hunting/fishing) and event promotion; Instagram effective for visuals (food trucks, boutiques) using Stories/Reels
  • Language and culture: Bilingual content (English/Spanish) materially increases reach and shares within family networks; WhatsApp is common for cross‑border and extended‑family communication
  • Timing: Engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (11:30 a.m.–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.); Marketplace browsing is strongest weeknights and weekend mid‑day
  • Trust dynamics: Posts from known individuals and established local pages outperform brand‑only accounts; authentic photos/video of local people/places drive comments and shares
  • Rural constraints: Spotty broadband pushes more mobile‑first consumption; live streams perform best when archived for asynchronous viewing

Notes

  • Estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s Social Media Use (2024) with adjustments for rural adoption and Live Oak County demographics (ACS 2023). Figures are rounded and presented as local ranges to reflect on‑the‑ground variability.

Other Counties in Texas