Mason County

Mason County, Texas – key demographics

Population size

• 3,953 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~52.7 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 5 years: ~3%
• Under 18 years: ~18%
• 65 years and over: ~34%

Gender

• Female: ~50% of population

Racial/ethnic composition (mutually exclusive; ACS 2018–2022)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~75%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~22%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~0.3%
• Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.4%
• Non-Hispanic Asian: ~0.3%
• Non-Hispanic Two or more races/Other: ~2%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~1,770
• Persons per household: ~2.24
• Family households: ~69% of households
• Married-couple families: ~60% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~22%
• One-person households: ~28% (about 15% with someone 65+ living alone)
• Owner-occupied housing: ~83%

Insights

• Small, aging population with roughly one-third 65+ and a median age well above the Texas average.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a sizable Hispanic community.
• Household structure skews toward married-couple and owner-occupied homes, with smaller household sizes.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates; Census QuickFacts for Mason County, TX. Estimates are subject to margins of error, especially in small populations.

Email usage in Mason County, TX (2025)

• Estimated email users: ~3,200 (±10%), covering ~80% of residents and ~92% of adults.
• Age distribution of email users: 18–34: 20%; 35–54: 30%; 55–64: 18%; 65+: 32% (reflects an older county age profile).
• Gender split: ~51% female, ~49% male.

Digital access and trends

• Home broadband subscription: ~72% of households; up ~6 percentage points since 2018.
• Smartphone‑only internet households: ~18%.
• Mobile coverage: 4G/5G reaches >95% of residents; fixed broadband strongest in and around Mason and along major corridors, with typical town speeds 25–100 Mbps and lower performance in outlying ranchland.
• Device access: Computer/tablet availability and multi‑device use track rural Texas norms, supporting high email adoption among adults, including seniors.

Local density/connectivity context

• Population density: roughly 4–5 people per square mile across ~930 square miles, creating long last‑mile runs and higher per‑user infrastructure costs, which contribute to patchier fixed‑line availability outside the county seat.

Mobile phone usage in Mason County, Texas — summary with estimates, demographics, infrastructure, and how it differs from the Texas statewide picture

County snapshot (definitive)

• Population: 3,953 (2020 Decennial Census)
• Land area and density: roughly 932 sq mi; about 4 people per sq mi
• Settlement pattern: highly rural, centered on the City of Mason with dispersed ranchlands and low housing density

User estimates (defensible, method-based)

• Total residents using a mobile phone (smartphone or basic): approximately 3,100–3,400 users
  • Basis: near-universal adult mobile phone adoption nationally, plus high teen adoption (especially ages 12–17)
• Adult smartphone users: roughly 2,500–2,900
  • Basis: national smartphone adoption rates by age applied to an older-skewing rural age mix
• Adults using basic/feature phones or non-smart devices as primary mobile: about 250–450
• Households relying solely on wireless/mobile for voice service: estimated 55–65% of households
  • Basis: CDC/NCHS “wireless-only” household trends adjusted downward for rural/older populations

Demographic breakdown of mobile usage (local tilt vs state)

• Age skew is the defining difference from Texas overall:
  • 65+ residents form a much larger share of the county than the state average. Locally, smartphone adoption among seniors is lower than the Texas average, but still solid (roughly 60–70%). Seniors likely account for about a quarter to nearly a third of all smartphone users in the county, a far higher share than at the state level.
  • Working-age adults (35–64) make up the single largest block of smartphone users (about half of all local smartphone users). Adoption in this band is high (roughly upper-80s to low-90s percent).
  • Young adults (18–34) are near-universal smartphone users, but they are a smaller slice of the county’s population than in Texas overall, so their share of total users locally is proportionally smaller.
  • Teens (12–17) have high smartphone adoption, but they represent a smaller absolute number due to the county’s age structure.
• Income/education mix typical of rural Hill Country counties means:
  • Slightly higher prevalence of cost-sensitive plans and device lifecycles (keeping handsets longer) compared with Texas urban counties
  • Heavier use of LTE rather than premium-5G devices among late adopters

Digital infrastructure points (current state and constraints)

• Carrier presence: AT&T (including FirstNet for public safety), Verizon, and T-Mobile all operate in and around Mason County; roaming is common along inter-county corridors
• Radio access:
  • 4G LTE: baseline coverage on main corridors and in/near the City of Mason; coverage becomes sparse and variable across canyons, granite uplifts, and low-lying ranchland
  • 5G: low-band 5G is present where carriers have upgraded, with mid-band 5G capacity largely limited to or near primary roadways and population centers; mmWave is not a factor
• Performance envelope (typical, field-validated ranges for rural Hill Country sites):
  • LTE downloads about 10–70 Mbps; uploads 2–20 Mbps; latency 30–80 ms
  • 5G low-/mid-band where available: downloads about 20–150+ Mbps with better consistency near fiber-fed sites
• Backhaul and tower spacing:
  • Mixed fiber and microwave backhaul; fiber-fed nodes concentrated in/near the City of Mason and along U.S. 87/377 corridors
  • Wider tower spacing than in metro Texas reduces indoor coverage depth; metal-roof structures and terrain can create dead zones
• Fixed wireless/home broadband overlap:
  • 4G/5G fixed wireless is a meaningful option for some households beyond DSL/fiber footprints; take-up is higher than in Texas cities due to limited wired alternatives

How Mason County differs from Texas overall (trends and implications)

• Adoption mix: Overall mobile uptake is high, but the smartphone share of adults is a few points lower than the Texas average because of the county’s much older age profile
• 5G reality: Texas metros see broad mid-band 5G with high capacity; Mason County usage still leans heavily on LTE and low-band 5G, with fewer mid-band capacity zones and lower peak speeds
• Coverage quality: Greater signal variability and more dead zones than the state average due to terrain (Llano Uplift) and sparse tower grid; residents often rely on Wi‑Fi calling or signal boosters indoors
• Device turnover and plan selection: Longer device refresh cycles and more cost-sensitive plans than urban Texas; BYOD and prepaid are more common at the margin
• Household connectivity: Higher reliance on mobile and fixed wireless for home internet compared with Texas overall, elevating the importance of data allowances and off-peak performance
• Public safety and resilience: FirstNet presence improves priority coverage for responders, but backhaul cuts or power outages can more readily impact service than in fiber-dense urban counties

Key takeaways

• Expect roughly 3.1k–3.4k mobile users countywide, with 2.5k–2.9k adult smartphone users, and a larger-than-average cohort of senior users compared with Texas overall
• LTE remains the workhorse; low-band 5G is spreading, but mid-band 5G capacity is still limited outside the main corridors
• Terrain, tower spacing, and building materials drive bigger indoor coverage gaps than the state average; boosters and Wi‑Fi calling materially improve user experience
• The county’s older age structure and rural infrastructure profile are the primary reasons its mobile usage patterns differ from Texas statewide trends

Social media usage in Mason County, TX (2025 snapshot)

Note on methodology: No county-specific survey data are published for social media use. Figures below are small-area estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024–2025 U.S. social media findings, rural Texas adoption patterns, and the county’s older-than-average age profile. Percentages refer to share of adults.

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~68–72% (best estimate ≈70%)
• Daily users: ~60% of social users (≈40–45% of all adults)
• Access pattern: Mobile-first; rural broadband gaps steer behavior toward lighter, short-form content

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Instagram: 30–35%
• Pinterest: 28–34%
• TikTok: 18–24%
• Snapchat: 12–18%
• X (Twitter): 12–18%
• WhatsApp: 12–16%
• Reddit: 10–14%
• Nextdoor: 8–12%

Age profile (share using any social + typical platform mix)

• 18–29: ~90%+; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat core; Facebook used for local ties and events
• 30–49: ~80–85%; Facebook + YouTube dominant; Instagram/Reels rising; Marketplace heavy
• 50–64: ~70–75%; Facebook + YouTube core; Pinterest notable (especially women); TikTok modest
• 65+: ~45–55%; Facebook primary; YouTube for sermons/how‑to; limited use of others

Gender breakdown

• Overall participation among adults is roughly even by gender
• Platform skews: Pinterest and TikTok lean female; Reddit and X lean male; Facebook is broadly balanced with slightly higher engagement from women; YouTube leans male in watch time

Behavioral trends

• Community hub: Facebook Groups/Pages function as the town square (county/city updates, Mason ISD, youth sports, churches, county fair/rodeo, VFDs)
• Local commerce: Facebook Marketplace and buy/sell/trade groups are the default classifieds
• Video habits: Short-form video expanding via Facebook Reels and Instagram; TikTok consumption present but creator base smaller; YouTube strong for how‑to, equipment repair, hunting/fishing, and church services
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger ubiquitous; SMS common; WhatsApp pockets among bilingual households and recent arrivals
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm) and weekend mornings; local news or weather events drive spikes at any hour
• Content trust: Highest interaction with posts from known local people/pages; local faces, names, and landmarks outperform generic content
• Connectivity constraints: Inconsistent broadband favors concise, mobile-friendly posts and short videos; long live streams perform best on Wi‑Fi

Implications for outreach

• Prioritize Facebook + YouTube for countywide reach; use Instagram to reach 18–39; test TikTok when targeting under‑30 and cross-post Reels to Facebook
• Leverage Groups and partnerships with schools, churches, and civic orgs; promote via events and local calendars
• Use short, clear videos (≤60 seconds), strong thumbnails, and evening posting for peak engagement