Lynn County Local Demographic Profile
Key demographics of Lynn County, Texas
Population
- Total population: 5,596 (2020 Census)
- Change since 2010: −5.4% (2010: 5,915)
Age
- Median age: ~37 years (ACS 2019–2023)
- Age distribution: Under 18 ~27%; 18–64 ~57%; 65+ ~16%
Gender
- Male ~51%; Female ~49% (ACS 2019–2023)
Racial/ethnic composition (mutually exclusive; ACS 2019–2023)
- Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~55%
- White, non-Hispanic: ~39%
- Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~2%
- American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
- Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
- Two or more races/other, non-Hispanic: ~3%
Households and housing
- Total households: ~2,050 (2020 Census/ACS 2019–2023)
- Average household size: ~2.7
- Family households: ~69%; average family size: ~3.2
- Homeownership rate: ~73% (owner-occupied share); renter-occupied ~27%
- Households with children under 18: ~36%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)
Email Usage in Lynn County
Lynn County, TX snapshot (2020 Census pop. 5,596 across 892 sq mi; ~6.3 people/sq mi)
Estimated email users
- Adults (18+): ~4,140
- Email users (18+): ~3,800 (≈92% of adults, aligning with Pew U.S./TX adoption)
Age distribution of email users (est.)
- 18–34: ~1,020
- 35–64: ~1,980
- 65+: ~800 (lower adoption than younger cohorts but still substantial)
Gender split
- Population is roughly 51% male / 49% female; email users mirror this: ~1,940 male, ~1,860 female.
Digital access and connectivity
- Households with a broadband subscription: ~75–80% (ACS 2018–2022). Remaining households rely on mobile-only, fixed wireless, or lack home internet.
- FCC broadband map (2024) shows widespread 25/3 Mbps availability; 100/20 and fiber are concentrated around Tahoka, with sparser options in outlying areas. Fixed wireless and satellite provide countywide fallback.
- Rural density and agricultural land use mean connectivity thins outside towns, contributing to higher smartphone-only reliance (roughly one in five rural TX households).
Insights
- Email penetration is near-universal among working-age residents; seniors lag but a strong majority use email.
- Access gaps are geographic: service quality and speeds drop outside town centers, shaping heavier mobile and fixed-wireless usage.
Sources: U.S. Census 2020; ACS 2018–2022 (S2801); Pew Research Center (email usage); FCC National Broadband Map (2024).
Mobile Phone Usage in Lynn County
Mobile phone usage in Lynn County, Texas — summary
Definitive baselines
- Population and settlement: 5,596 residents (2020 Census) across roughly 891 square miles (~6 people per square mile), county seat Tahoka; overwhelmingly rural and adjacent to the Lubbock metro.
- Rural classification: Nonmetro, adjacent-to-metro county (USDA Rural-Urban Continuum, “small urban cluster” profile). The sparse population density and long road segments between communities shape mobile coverage and usage patterns.
User estimates (modeled from 2020 Census population structure; Pew Research rural smartphone adoption; and observed rural Texas usage patterns)
- Adult smartphone users: 3,300–3,900 adults actively using smartphones (roughly 78–88% of adults), with higher adoption in working-age groups and lower among seniors.
- Total active mobile lines/SIMs: 5,000–6,500 (1.3–1.6 lines per adult smartphone user, reflecting work lines, hotspots, farm/IoT lines, and family devices).
- Mobile-only home internet: 280–420 households primarily relying on cellular data for home internet (roughly 14–21% of households), higher than the Texas average due to limited wireline options outside town centers.
- Prepaid share: 28–38% of lines (above the state average), reflecting rural income mix, seasonal work patterns, and price sensitivity.
Demographic usage patterns (how Lynn County differs from Texas overall)
- Age: Seniors (65+) comprise a larger share of the population than the Texas average, and smartphone adoption among this group is materially lower, pulling down overall county adoption and driving a higher incidence of basic/older Android devices relative to premium 5G flagships.
- Ethnicity and language: A substantial Hispanic/Latino population correlates with higher smartphone-only access and elevated prepaid use compared with the statewide mix; bilingual plans and budget Android handsets are overrepresented relative to Texas metropolitan markets.
- Income and education: Lower median household income and lower college-attainment rates than the state average contribute to slower device replacement cycles, more refurbished/secondhand phone purchases, and constrained data usage (smaller data buckets, more Wi‑Fi offload when available).
Digital infrastructure and coverage (county specifics)
- Networks present: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon provide 4G LTE across population centers and primary corridors (notably US‑87 into Lubbock). Regional carriers and MVNOs ride these networks.
- 5G availability: Low-band 5G is present along the US‑87 corridor and in/near Tahoka; coverage thins across farm-to-market roads and the southern/eastern parts of the county. Mid-band 5G capacity is limited outside the corridor, and millimeter-wave is effectively absent. This contrasts with Texas’s major metros where mid-band 5G is widely deployed.
- Capacity and speeds: Median speeds are shaped by distance to sites and limited mid-band depth; town centers and the US‑87 approach to Lubbock see markedly better performance than dispersed rural blocks. Statewide, median 5G speeds are higher and more consistent due to denser site grids and broader mid-band holdings.
- Site grid and backhaul: Fewer macro sites per square mile than the state norm; reliance on long backhaul spans means weather and power events have outsized effects on uptime compared with urban Texas. Fiber backhaul is improving along primary routes, but remains thin across agricultural sections.
- Fixed broadband substitutes: In-town DSL/cable or small-fiber pockets exist, but many outlying households use fixed wireless access (FWA) or phone-based hotspots. This drives the county’s higher mobile-only share versus the state average.
- Coverage gaps: Low-lying areas and sections of FM roads exhibit dead zones/weak signal, especially indoors in metal-roof structures, making external antennas and boosters more common than in urban Texas.
Key trends versus Texas statewide
- Higher reliance on mobile as primary home internet: Mobile-only and FWA use are notably higher than the Texas average due to sparse wireline options outside towns.
- Lower 5G depth and capacity: 5G coverage exists but with less mid-band depth; median speeds lag metro Texas and are more variable by location and time of day.
- More prepaid, budget, and older devices: Cost-sensitive plans and slower upgrade cycles are more common than in Texas’s urban counties.
- Greater indoor coverage challenges: Metal construction and larger lot sizes increase dependence on Wi‑Fi calling, signal boosters, and external antennas.
- Seasonal and agricultural usage: Traffic patterns peak around planting/harvest and along logistics corridors, shaping cell loading in ways not seen in urban Texas.
Implications
- Service planning: Capacity upgrades along US‑87 and town centers will yield outsized benefits; targeted small cells or C‑band additions in Tahoka could materially boost user experience.
- Digital inclusion: Programs that bundle affordable smartphones with generous data, Wi‑Fi routers, or FWA discounts will have higher uptake than fiber-only solutions in outlying blocks.
- Emergency communications: Investments in backup power and hardened backhaul on a small number of key sites will markedly improve resilience relative to the cost, given the sparse grid.
Notes on sources and method
- Population and rural context: 2020 Decennial Census; USDA rural classification; county geography.
- Usage estimates: Derived from Census age structure, Pew Research Center rural smartphone adoption benchmarks, and rural Texas access patterns observed in ACS “Computer and Internet Use” indicators and FCC coverage datasets. Estimates are presented as ranges to reflect small-area uncertainty while remaining decision-useful.
Social Media Trends in Lynn County
Lynn County, TX social media snapshot (best-available 2024 estimates)
Overall usage
- Adults using at least one social platform: ~72%
- Daily social media users (of all adults): ~58–62%
- Median number of platforms used per adult user: 3
- Access pattern: smartphone-centric; ~20% of adults are “smartphone-only” internet users
- Note: Figures reflect county-sized rural patterns modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 social media use (rural) and U.S. Census age mix for small rural Texas counties
Most-used platforms (share of all Lynn County adults)
- YouTube: ~80%
- Facebook: ~70%
- Instagram: ~38%
- TikTok: ~30%
- Snapchat: ~24%
- Pinterest: ~30%
- WhatsApp: ~20%
- X (Twitter): ~19%
- LinkedIn: ~17%
- Reddit: ~15%
- Nextdoor: ~10% Top platforms by reach: YouTube and Facebook dominate; Instagram and TikTok are secondary and younger-skewed.
Age-group breakdown (share using any social media)
- 18–29: ~90% (heavy on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; lighter on Facebook)
- 30–49: ~82% (mixed use; YouTube and Facebook strong, Instagram/TikTok moderate)
- 50–64: ~70% (Facebook and YouTube core; limited Instagram/TikTok)
- 65+: ~48% (Facebook primary; YouTube for how‑to, news, church/community content)
Gender breakdown (directional patterns)
- Overall social media use is similar for men and women in aggregate.
- Women: higher likelihood of Facebook and Pinterest; strong use of local Facebook Groups and Marketplace.
- Men: higher likelihood of YouTube, Reddit, and X; more tech/auto/ag content on YouTube and Reddit.
- Minimal gender gap on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat among younger users.
Behavioral trends in Lynn County (rural West Texas pattern)
- Facebook is the community hub: local news, school/sports updates, church and civic groups, buy/sell (Marketplace), county/city office announcements; most users check daily.
- YouTube is the “how-to” and entertainment backbone: farm/ranch equipment maintenance, DIY, weather, and commodity commentary.
- Younger users split attention between Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok; creation is lighter than consumption, with short-form video cross-posted to Facebook.
- Messaging is embedded in platforms: Facebook Messenger widely used; WhatsApp notable among bilingual/Hispanic families for family and group coordination.
- Business use is pragmatic: local businesses and events rely on Facebook Pages/Groups and boosted posts; Instagram used by boutiques, food trucks, and school/booster clubs; X has limited local utility.
- Activity peaks early morning and late evening around work and farming schedules; weekday midday dips are common.
- Nextdoor penetration is low; neighborhood coordination largely stays on Facebook Groups.
Sources and method
- Pew Research Center (2024) on U.S. social media use, with rural-specific breakouts; U.S. Census Bureau (ACS) for small-county age structure in rural Texas. Percentages represent modeled county-level estimates consistent with rural Texas patterns.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Texas
- Anderson
- Andrews
- Angelina
- Aransas
- Archer
- Armstrong
- Atascosa
- Austin
- Bailey
- Bandera
- Bastrop
- Baylor
- Bee
- Bell
- Bexar
- Blanco
- Borden
- Bosque
- Bowie
- Brazoria
- Brazos
- Brewster
- Briscoe
- Brooks
- Brown
- Burleson
- Burnet
- Caldwell
- Calhoun
- Callahan
- Cameron
- Camp
- Carson
- Cass
- Castro
- Chambers
- Cherokee
- Childress
- Clay
- Cochran
- Coke
- Coleman
- Collin
- Collingsworth
- Colorado
- Comal
- Comanche
- Concho
- Cooke
- Coryell
- Cottle
- Crane
- Crockett
- Crosby
- Culberson
- Dallam
- Dallas
- Dawson
- De Witt
- Deaf Smith
- Delta
- Denton
- Dickens
- Dimmit
- Donley
- Duval
- Eastland
- Ector
- Edwards
- El Paso
- Ellis
- Erath
- Falls
- Fannin
- Fayette
- Fisher
- Floyd
- Foard
- Fort Bend
- Franklin
- Freestone
- Frio
- Gaines
- Galveston
- Garza
- Gillespie
- Glasscock
- Goliad
- Gonzales
- Gray
- Grayson
- Gregg
- Grimes
- Guadalupe
- Hale
- Hall
- Hamilton
- Hansford
- Hardeman
- Hardin
- Harris
- Harrison
- Hartley
- Haskell
- Hays
- Hemphill
- Henderson
- Hidalgo
- Hill
- Hockley
- Hood
- Hopkins
- Houston
- Howard
- Hudspeth
- Hunt
- Hutchinson
- Irion
- Jack
- Jackson
- Jasper
- Jeff Davis
- Jefferson
- Jim Hogg
- Jim Wells
- Johnson
- Jones
- Karnes
- Kaufman
- Kendall
- Kenedy
- Kent
- Kerr
- Kimble
- King
- Kinney
- Kleberg
- Knox
- La Salle
- Lamar
- Lamb
- Lampasas
- Lavaca
- Lee
- Leon
- Liberty
- Limestone
- Lipscomb
- Live Oak
- Llano
- Loving
- Lubbock
- Madison
- Marion
- Martin
- Mason
- Matagorda
- Maverick
- Mcculloch
- Mclennan
- Mcmullen
- Medina
- Menard
- Midland
- Milam
- Mills
- Mitchell
- Montague
- Montgomery
- Moore
- Morris
- Motley
- Nacogdoches
- Navarro
- Newton
- Nolan
- Nueces
- Ochiltree
- Oldham
- Orange
- Palo Pinto
- Panola
- Parker
- Parmer
- Pecos
- Polk
- Potter
- Presidio
- Rains
- Randall
- Reagan
- Real
- Red River
- Reeves
- Refugio
- Roberts
- Robertson
- Rockwall
- Runnels
- Rusk
- Sabine
- San Augustine
- San Jacinto
- San Patricio
- San Saba
- Schleicher
- Scurry
- Shackelford
- Shelby
- Sherman
- Smith
- Somervell
- Starr
- Stephens
- Sterling
- Stonewall
- Sutton
- Swisher
- Tarrant
- Taylor
- Terrell
- Terry
- Throckmorton
- Titus
- Tom Green
- Travis
- Trinity
- Tyler
- Upshur
- Upton
- Uvalde
- Val Verde
- Van Zandt
- Victoria
- Walker
- Waller
- Ward
- Washington
- Webb
- Wharton
- Wheeler
- Wichita
- Wilbarger
- Willacy
- Williamson
- Wilson
- Winkler
- Wise
- Wood
- Yoakum
- Young
- Zapata
- Zavala