Midland County

Midland County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 169,983 (2020 Decennial Census)
• ~183,000 (2023 Census estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~32 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~29%
• 65 and over: ~11%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity (shares; ACS 2018–2022)

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~56%
• White alone, non-Hispanic: ~36%
• Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic: ~6%
• Asian alone, non-Hispanic: ~2%
• All other, non-Hispanic (including multiracial, Native, NHPI): ~1–2%

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~61,500
• Persons per household: ~2.9
• Family households: ~73%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~65%
• Median household income (2022 dollars): ~$90–95k
• Poverty rate: ~10–11%

Insights

• Younger and slightly more male than the U.S. average, reflecting the energy-sector labor force.
• Majority Hispanic population and larger household sizes than the national average.
• High median household income with comparatively low-to-moderate poverty for a fast-growing Texas county.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year; 2023 population estimate). Figures rounded for readability.

Midland County, TX snapshot

• Population and density: ≈179,000 residents (2023), ≈200 people per square mile, concentrated in the Midland urban area along I‑20.
• Estimated email users: ≈129,000 residents. Basis: ~72% of residents are adults and ~92% of U.S. adults use email, plus most teens 13–17.
• Age distribution of email use (share of each age group using email): 18–29 ≈98%; 30–49 ≈96%; 50–64 ≈92%; 65+ ≈80%. Uptake is near-universal under 65 and strong but lower among seniors.
• Gender split among users: roughly even, mirroring the local population (≈51% male, 49% female).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: ≈88–90%; computer access ≈92% (ACS patterns for Texas counties of similar profile).
  • High smartphone adoption (≈90%); smartphone‑only internet users ≈19–20%, higher in outlying areas.
  • 5G coverage from major carriers across Midland and along key corridors; gigabit cable/fiber widely available in the city. Rural north/south parts of the county have fewer fixed‑wireline options and rely more on fixed wireless or satellite.
  • Public Wi‑Fi and institution‑based access (libraries, schools) support connectivity for lower‑income households. Insight: Email reach is effectively universal among working‑age adults; access constraints, where present, are driven by last‑mile broadband in rural pockets rather than device availability.

Mobile phone usage in Midland County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

Baseline context

• Population: 169,983 (2020 Census). Young, working-age skew (median age ≈ 31), with a large oil-and-gas workforce and higher-than-average household incomes relative to Texas.
• Household count: ~62,000 (ACS 2018–2022).

User estimates (derived from Census demographics, Pew Research smartphone adoption, and industry adoption rates)

• Unique mobile phone users: ~130,000 residents (2024 est.).
• Smartphone users: ~123,000 residents (2024 est.).
• Device mix: smartphone share ≈ 92% of adult mobile users; basic phones concentrated among 65+.
• Mobile-only home internet: ~12,000–13,000 households (≈19%–21%) use cellular data as their primary or sole home internet, several points above the Texas average, driven by shift work, temporary housing, and exurban addresses near worksites.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA) adoption: materially higher than state average in and around Midland city; T-Mobile and Verizon 5G Home/Business are widely marketed and used by small firms and renters.

Demographic breakdown of usage patterns

• Age: 18–34 cohort is larger than the Texas average and has near-universal smartphone adoption (>97%), pulling up countywide app-based communication, streaming, and navigation use.
• Industry: oil-and-gas employment creates heavy weekday peak mobility (pre-dawn and late afternoon) and sustained off-grid usage on lease roads; companies and contractors show high uptake of rugged devices, mobile hotspots, and private/enterprise LTE.
• Income: higher median household income than the Texas median translates into above-average 5G device penetration and multi-line plans, but also a sizable prepaid segment among transient workers and contractors.
• Language and culture: a large Hispanic community supports strong adoption of WhatsApp and other OTT messaging and calling, increasing data-centric usage relative to voice/SMS.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro networks
  • 4G LTE: near-universal on major corridors (I-20, SH-158, SH-191, SH-349); LTE remains the primary layer across oilfields and sparsely populated tracts.
  • 5G:
    • Urban Midland: mid-band 5G (T-Mobile n41, Verizon/AT&T C-band) broadly available; population coverage typically 95%+ within city limits.
    • Countywide: mixed low-band and mid-band; practical 5G population coverage ~70%–85% across the county, with low-band dominant outside the core.
  • Typical performance: mid-band 5G in town delivers roughly 150–400 Mbps down with low double-digit Mbps uplink; rural LTE commonly 5–25 Mbps down, single-digit to low double-digit uplink.
  • FirstNet (AT&T): strong presence supporting public safety and incident response along main corridors and in the city.
• Private and specialized networks
  • CBRS (3.5 GHz) is actively used in the Permian Basin for private LTE on production sites and midstream operations (SCADA, video, telemetry), a notable differentiator from most Texas counties.
• Backhaul and middle mile
  • Multiple long-haul fiber routes follow I-20 and key state highways; carrier presence includes national and regional fiber operators supporting tower backhaul and enterprise laterals.
• Fixed access and alternatives
  • Cable internet (Sparklight/Cable One) is the dominant wireline broadband in Midland city; AT&T fiber is present but not ubiquitous.
  • WISPs (e.g., Rise/Nextlink and CBRS-based providers) serve exurban clusters.
  • Satellite (Starlink, Viasat) fills gaps in remote leases and homesteads outside terrestrial coverage.

How Midland County differs from Texas overall

• Higher mobile-only internet reliance: cellular-as-primary broadband is several percentage points higher than the state average, reflecting mobile work patterns, rental/temporary housing, and distance from fiber/cable plant on the county periphery.
• Heavier 5G FWA penetration: stronger uptake among small businesses and households in the city and fringe zones compared with statewide norms.
• Coverage asymmetry: urban Midland enjoys dense mid-band 5G; large swaths of the county depend on LTE or low-band 5G for mobility, emphasizing reliability over peak throughput.
• Industrial private LTE: CBRS/enterprise LTE usage tied to oilfield operations is significantly more prevalent than the Texas average and shapes device portfolios and traffic profiles.
• Temporal traffic peaks: distinct early-morning and late-afternoon mobile traffic surges align with oilfield shift changes more than typical commuter patterns seen in Texas metros.
• Demographic tailwinds: a younger median age and higher incomes sustain premium handset penetration and multi-line family/business plans, while a transient workforce bolsters prepaid and hotspot usage more than statewide averages.

Key numbers at a glance (2024 est.)

• Population: 169,983 (2020 base)
• Unique mobile users: ~130,000
• Smartphone users: ~123,000
• Mobile-only home internet households: ~12,000–13,000 (≈19%–21%)
• 5G population coverage: ~95%+ in Midland city; ~70%–85% countywide
• Typical urban 5G speeds: ~150–400 Mbps down; rural LTE: ~5–25 Mbps down

Sources and methods

• Population, households, age/income: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census; ACS 2018–2022).
• Device adoption benchmarks: Pew Research Center (2023 smartphone and mobile phone ownership).
• Network coverage and technology mix: carrier public coverage disclosures, FCC maps, and industry reporting for the Permian Basin; performance ranges reflect commonly observed mid-band 5G and LTE characteristics in comparable West Texas markets.

Social media usage in Midland County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

User base and demographics

• Overall adoption: Roughly 7 in 10 adults in Midland County use at least one social platform, in line with stable U.S. adult adoption (~72%).
• Age mix: Midland County skews younger than the U.S. (median age ~32), with a large 18–44 cohort; this tilts usage toward video-first and visual platforms.
• Gender: Slight male majority (~51% male, ~49% female), reflecting the oil and gas workforce; this tends to boost YouTube, X/Twitter, and Reddit relative to national averages.
• Ethnicity/language: About half of residents are Hispanic/Latino, supporting above-average use of Facebook Groups, Instagram, and WhatsApp, plus bilingual content consumption.

Most-used platforms (share of adult residents who use each platform; modeled from Pew Research 2024 U.S. usage and adjusted to Midland County’s younger, male-leaning, and Hispanic profile)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 48–52%
• TikTok: 32–38%
• Snapchat: 30–35%
• X (Twitter): 25–30%
• WhatsApp: 24–30%
• LinkedIn: 24–28%
• Pinterest: 25–30% (notably higher among women)
• Reddit: 18–22%
• Nextdoor: 15–20% (used for neighborhood and city updates)

Age-group usage patterns (local implications, based on national patterns shifted for Midland’s age mix)

• 13–17: Heavy Snapchat and TikTok use; Instagram for school/teams; YouTube for entertainment and how-tos.
• 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, YouTube dominate; Snapchat remains strong; Facebook mainly for groups/marketplace and family; WhatsApp common among bilingual users.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube are universal; Instagram for Reels and local businesses; TikTok growth for quick local updates; LinkedIn pockets of use in energy and services.
• 50–64: Facebook (news, groups, Marketplace) and YouTube (DIY, finance, local content); moderate Instagram; minimal TikTok/Snapchat except via family sharing.
• 65+: Facebook for family/community; YouTube for news, faith, and hobbies; Nextdoor for neighborhood alerts.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Women: Higher participation in Facebook (especially Groups/Marketplace), Instagram, Pinterest; strong engagement with local schools, sports, churches, and small-business pages.
• Men: Higher participation in YouTube, X/Twitter, Reddit; notable LinkedIn usage in oil and gas and related trades; active in local news, traffic, and sports updates.

Behavioral trends specific to Midland County

• Community-first behavior: Facebook Groups, Marketplace, school booster pages, and church/community announcements drive recurring engagement; buy/sell/trade is unusually active.
• Energy-sector rhythm: Peak activity often clusters around shift changes (early mornings, late evenings); recruiting posts (CDL, roustabout, HSE) perform well on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.
• Video-forward consumption: Short-form video (Reels/TikTok) outperforms static posts for local eateries, events, and real estate; YouTube remains the default for long-form and how-to content.
• Bilingual communication: Spanish/English posts broaden reach; WhatsApp used for family, church, and work crews’ coordination.
• Hyperlocal discovery: Local hashtags (#MidlandTX, #PermianBasin), geotags, and event pages drive foot traffic; Nextdoor and Facebook Events matter for turnout.
• News and alerts: X/Twitter and Facebook used for road closures, weather, school updates; resharing by local pages quickly amplifies reach.

Notes on method

• Platform percentages are modeled for Midland County using Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform usage and adjusted for the county’s younger age structure, slight male majority, and large Hispanic population. This yields realistic local estimates where county-specific platform data are not officially published.