Llano County

Llano County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 21,243 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~60.0 years
• Under 18: ~13%
• 18 to 64: ~51%
• 65 and over: ~36%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (Hispanic can be of any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~84%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~13%
• Black/African American: ~1%
• Asian: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~2%

Households

• Total households: ~10,200
• Average household size: ~2.13
• Family households: ~64% of households
• Married-couple households: ~56% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~17%
• Households with a person 65+: ~47%
• Average family size: ~2.6

Insights

• The county has a markedly older age profile, with over one-third of residents age 65+, small household sizes, and a predominance of non-Hispanic White residents; Hispanic/Latino residents form the largest minority group.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101). Figures rounded for clarity.

Llano County, TX email usage overview (2025):

• Population and density: ≈22,000 residents spread over 939 sq mi (~23 people/sq mi), indicating sparse, rural connectivity challenges.
• Estimated email users: ~15,600 adult residents use email regularly (derivation: local age structure and U.S. adoption norms by age).
• Age distribution of email users: 18–34 ≈21%, 35–64 ≈45%, 65+ ≈34% (county skews older; seniors are a large share of users despite slightly lower adoption).
• Gender split: County population is roughly 51% female, 49% male; email usage mirrors this split.
• Digital access: About 80% of households subscribe to broadband and over 90% have a computer/smartphone (ACS 2018–2022). Connectivity and higher-speed options concentrate around Llano, Kingsland, and Horseshoe Bay; outlying ranchlands rely more on fixed wireless or satellite.
• Trends: Broadband subscription and device access have risen steadily since the mid‑2010s, narrowing (but not closing) rural gaps. Email remains the default digital identifier across services, with near‑universal use among working‑age adults and growing adoption among older residents. Low population density continues to raise last‑mile costs and contributes to uneven speeds and uptake.

Llano County, TX mobile phone usage: summary and how it differs from state-level

Context and scale

• Population and households: ~22,500 residents and ~10,800 households (2023 estimates). The county skews older; roughly one-third of residents are 65+, far above the Texas average.
• Adult base: ~18,900 adults (18+).

User estimates

• Mobile phone users (any mobile device): ~17,700 adults (≈94% of adults), below Texas’ ~97% adult mobile adoption.
• Smartphone users: ~15,300–15,800 adults (≈81–84% of adults), distinctly below Texas’ ~88–90%.
• Basic/feature-phone-only users: ~1,900–2,400 adults (≈10–13% of adults), roughly double the state share due to the county’s older age profile and rural coverage considerations.
• Mobile-only home internet: ~15–18% of households rely primarily on mobile data for home internet (hotspot or smartphone-only), versus ~10–12% statewide. This reflects limited wired broadband outside town centers.

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns and adoption)

• Age
  • 18–34: smartphone adoption ≈94–97% (near state levels).
  • 35–64: ≈88–91% (a few points below state average).
  • 65+: ≈68–74% (materially below Texas’ roughly mid-70s to ~80%), with a higher share of basic phones and voice-first usage.
• Income and education
  • Households under $50k: smartphone adoption ≈75–82%; more mobile-only internet due to cost and limited wired options.
  • Households $100k+: ≈90–95% adoption; higher 5G-capable device penetration in Horseshoe Bay and lakeside communities.
• Residence pattern
  • Seasonal and weekend residents around Lake LBJ/Buchanan boost device counts and data demand intermittently, especially summer and holiday peaks—this variability is more pronounced than state norms.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Radio access networks
  • 4G LTE: broad coverage in population corridors (Llano, Kingsland, Horseshoe Bay, Sunrise Beach Village, along TX-71/US-281/TX-16). Interior ranchlands and granite uplifts create pockets of weak signal and dead zones.
  • 5G: widespread low-band 5G; mid-band 5G is concentrated along TX-71, US-281, and denser lakeside areas. County 5G population coverage is notably lower than the Texas average (roughly mid-60s to low-70s percent locally versus ~90%+ statewide), and performance often trails urban Texas due to spectrum mix and sparser sites.
• Sites and backhaul
  • Dozens of macro towers, with colocation along highways and near Kingsland/Horseshoe Bay; far fewer small cells than urban counties.
  • Backhaul is a mix of microwave and fiber; fiber paths run along major corridors and utility routes near the Highland Lakes. Rural sectors often depend on microwave, limiting capacity during peaks.
• Wired/wireless broadband context (drives mobile reliance)
  • Cable/fiber: available in town centers and lakeside subdivisions (e.g., Kingsland and Horseshoe Bay have cable DOCSIS and pockets of fiber). Gigabit-class wired service is not countywide.
  • DSL and legacy copper: present in older plant areas; speeds can be limited.
  • Fixed wireless ISPs: widely used outside towns; performance varies by line‑of‑sight and sector load.
  • Satellite: a meaningful slice of rural households maintain satellite as primary or failover, contributing to a higher-than-average use of mobile hotspots for supplemental access.

Usage behavior and performance trends

• Data demand is peaky: weekends/summer see noticeable sector congestion around the lakes; weekday daytime loads are lighter than urban Texas.
• Voice and messaging remain comparatively important among the 65+ cohort; smartphone owners in that group show rising telehealth, banking, and maps usage, but lower video streaming intensity than state averages.
• Signal boosters (home and vehicle) are common, reflecting coverage variability and metal-roof construction.
• Emergency communications: wildfire and severe-weather events periodically stress networks; FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is prioritized for public safety but redundancy outside highways is thinner than in metro Texas.

How Llano County differs from Texas overall

• Adoption gap: overall smartphone adoption is 5–8 percentage points lower, driven by an older population and rural coverage constraints; basic-phone prevalence is roughly twice the statewide share.
• Access pattern: a higher share of mobile-only and hotspot-reliant households (≈15–18% vs. ~10–12% statewide) due to patchier wired broadband beyond town cores.
• Network footprint: fewer sites per square mile and less mid-band 5G density; coverage holes persist in interior ranchlands—conditions uncommon in metro/suburban Texas.
• Performance: lower and more variable median throughput, with noticeable seasonal congestion around Lake LBJ/Buchanan; Texas urban counties see consistently higher mid-band 5G speeds.
• Upgrade cadence: device replacement skews slower (older users keep phones longer), delaying mass uptake of the latest 5G features relative to state averages.

Bottom line

• Approximate counts: ~17.7k adult mobile users and ~15.5k adult smartphone users in Llano County.
• The county’s mobile landscape is shaped by age, terrain, and infrastructure: adoption is solid but below Texas norms; reliance on mobile for home internet is higher; and 5G capacity growth is concentrated along major corridors and lakeside communities, leaving rural interiors dependent on LTE, fixed wireless, and satellite.

Llano County, TX social media snapshot (2024)

Core user stats

• Population: ≈22,000; adults (18+): ≈18,500; median age ≈58 (older than Texas and U.S. averages)
• Estimated adult social media users: 13,000–15,000 (≈70–78% of adults), plus ~1,200–1,500 active teen users
• Internet access context: rural broadband and smartphone adoption support solid but not universal social media use; usage skews to lower-bandwidth platforms and Facebook Groups

Age mix of local social media users (share of users)

• 18–29: 8–10%
• 30–44: 15–18%
• 45–64: 38–42%
• 65+: 32–36% The older population means a larger-than-average share of users are 45+.

Gender breakdown of users

• Female: ~54–56%
• Male: ~44–46% Women are slightly more represented among active users and drive much of the engagement in groups, events, and local commerce.

Most-used platforms in Llano County (share of local social media users using each in a typical month; modeled 2024 estimates)

• Facebook: 75–82% (dominant platform; Groups and Marketplace are central)
• YouTube: 70–76% (news, how‑to, faith, outdoors, local event replays)
• Instagram: 26–34% (younger adults, local businesses, events)
• Pinterest: 20–26% (strong among women 35+; recipes, home, crafts)
• TikTok: 18–25% (younger adults; travel/lakes, dining, DIY)
• X/Twitter: 9–14% (state/national news, sports, weather)
• Snapchat: 8–12% (teens/younger adults)
• LinkedIn: 7–11% (professionals, second‑home owners)
• Reddit: 4–7% (niche interests; tech/outdoors)
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (stronger in HOA/second‑home pockets like Horseshoe Bay and Kingsland)

Behavioral trends and what they mean

• Facebook-first county: Residents rely on Facebook Groups for local news, school updates, lost/found pets, wildfire and weather information, road closures, and water/lake level advisories. Marketplace and “buy/sell/trade” groups are highly active.
• Community over creators: Engagement centers on local organizations (county/city offices, EMS/fire, sheriff, Llano ISD, churches, VFDs, chambers) and group admins rather than individual influencers.
• Practical content wins: Utility updates (boil notices, burn bans, drought stages), health/clinic info, church events, and county services outperform entertainment content among 45+.
• Video rising, but short-form split: YouTube is widely used across ages; Facebook Reels see steady growth. TikTok reaches younger locals and visitors; older users prefer longer YouTube and Facebook videos.
• Tourism/seasonality effect: Weekend spikes in engagement tied to Lake LBJ/Highland Lakes traffic; effective promotion windows are Thu–Sat for restaurants, outfitters, and events.
• Timing: Peak local engagement typically 7–9am and 6–9pm; Sunday afternoons are strong for events and church/community posts.
• Commerce patterns: Facebook Marketplace is the primary channel for home goods, tools, ranch/farm equipment, and vehicles. Service providers (HVAC, landscaping, lake services) lean on Facebook reviews and Group referrals.
• Civic discourse: High participation on property taxes, water rights, wildfire mitigation, and development topics; moderation matters to limit misinformation and heated threads.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is the default; SMS is common; WhatsApp usage is niche (service workers, out‑of‑area owners).
• Cross-county media flow: Many residents follow Austin/San Antonio outlets on Facebook/YouTube for breaking news; local pages often reshare those posts.

Notes on method

• Figures are 2024 modeled local estimates derived from U.S. Census/ACS county demographics (older age profile) combined with recent Pew Research platform adoption by age/gender and rural broadband adoption patterns. Percentages represent the share of local social media users active on each platform in a typical month.