Milam County Local Demographic Profile

Milam County, Texas — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau data)

Population size

  • Total population: 24,754 (2020 Decennial Census)
  • ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimate: ~25,000

Age

  • Median age: ~42 years (ACS 2019–2023)
  • Under 18: ~23%
  • 18 to 64: ~57%
  • 65 and over: ~20%

Gender

  • Male: ~50%
  • Female: ~50% (ACS 2019–2023)

Race and ethnicity (Hispanic can be of any race; ACS 2019–2023)

  • Hispanic/Latino: ~30%
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~56–57%
  • Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~9%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
  • Two or more races/other, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Total households: ~9,700–9,900
  • Average household size: ~2.55–2.60
  • Family households: ~66%
  • Married-couple families: ~49%
  • Households with children under 18: ~28%
  • Living alone: ~29% of households; ~13% are 65+ living alone

Notes: Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census and 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates) and rounded for clarity.

Email Usage in Milam County

Milam County, TX overview

  • Population and density: ~24,754 residents (2020 Census), ~24 people per square mile.
  • Estimated email users (18+): ~17,100 adults.

Age distribution of email users (estimated)

  • 18–29: ~3,060 users (18%)
  • 30–49: ~5,950 (35%)
  • 50–64: ~4,460 (26%)
  • 65+: ~3,670 (21%)

Gender split (estimated)

  • Female: ~8,740 users (51%)
  • Male: ~8,360 users (49%)

Digital access and trends

  • About 80% of households subscribe to home broadband; roughly 90% have a computer or smartphone, and about 1 in 10 are smartphone‑only.
  • Email adoption tracks internet access: near‑universal among 18–49, high among 50–64, and somewhat lower among 65+, aligning with national patterns applied to Milam’s older‑leaning age mix.
  • Connectivity is denser in and around Cameron, Rockdale, and Thorndale; more dispersed rural areas face longer last‑mile runs that suppress fixed‑line take‑up and increase reliance on mobile data.
  • Mobile (4G/5G) coverage is broadly available along major corridors (e.g., US‑79/190), supporting smartphone email use even where fixed broadband is limited.

Insight: The county’s rural density and uneven fixed broadband mean email is ubiquitous among working‑age adults but more often accessed via smartphones outside towns; boosting fiber and affordable home broadband would lift usage among seniors.

Mobile Phone Usage in Milam County

Summary of mobile phone usage in Milam County, Texas (2024)

Topline picture

  • Population: roughly 25,000 residents in about 9,800 households; older and more rural than Texas overall.
  • Active mobile users: approximately 21,500 unique users (about 85% of residents), driven by near‑universal adult cellphone ownership and high teen uptake.
  • Smartphone users: about 17,500–18,000 people (around 80–85% of adults), a few points below the Texas average due to Milam County’s older age profile.

How Milam County differs from Texas overall

  • More mobile-reliant for internet at home: about 24% of households are smartphone‑only or primarily mobile for home internet (Texas ≈18%). This reflects sparser wireline options outside Cameron, Rockdale, and Milano.
  • Slightly lower smartphone penetration: countywide smartphone adoption runs an estimated 3–5 percentage points below the Texas average because Milam has a larger share of residents 65+.
  • Wireless‑only phone households: about two‑thirds of households rely solely on wireless service (≈66%), a bit lower than Texas’s ~70+% because older residents are somewhat more likely to keep a landline.
  • Performance variability: average mobile speeds are lower and less consistent than in Texas metros; mid‑band 5G is available in towns and along major corridors but drops to low‑band 5G/LTE in outlying areas.
  • Prepaid reliance and data sensitivity are more common than statewide, tied to lower median incomes and credit profiles typical of rural counties.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

  • Age: roughly one‑fifth of residents are 65+, compared with ~13% statewide. This group shows lower smartphone adoption and higher use of basic phones and voice/text plans, nudging overall smartphone rates down.
  • Income/education: median household income trails the Texas median, aligning with higher mobile‑only internet use among lower‑income households and students. Data‑capped plans and hotspot use are more prevalent.
  • Race/ethnicity: a sizable Hispanic population contributes to strong smartphone adoption but also higher mobile‑only internet reliance compared with wireline subscriptions, consistent with statewide patterns for Hispanic households.
  • Work/commute: commuting toward Williamson/Bell/Brazos counties concentrates higher‑capacity 5G use along US‑79/US‑190/TX‑36 corridors; off‑corridor ranchland shows reversion to low‑band 5G/LTE.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

  • Networks present: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon provide countywide 4G LTE coverage across populated areas. Low‑band 5G from all three carriers is broadly available; mid‑band 5G is strongest from T‑Mobile in and around Cameron and Rockdale, with expanding but patchier mid‑band from AT&T and Verizon centered on towns and highways.
  • Typical performance:
    • Mid‑band 5G (where available): roughly 100–300 Mbps down, suitable for multi‑device streaming and home substitute use.
    • Low‑band 5G/LTE: often 10–40 Mbps down, with noticeable evening congestion and indoor attenuation in metal‑roof homes and larger parcels.
  • First responders: FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) coverage is deployed across central Texas, including Milam County public‑safety operations, providing better rural range and priority access.
  • Home broadband alternatives:
    • 5G/LTE fixed wireless: T‑Mobile 5G Home Internet is available in core ZIPs (Cameron 76520, Rockdale 76567, and nearby). Verizon’s 5G/LTE Home options are more limited but present in parts of the county.
    • WISPs: multiple fixed‑wireless ISPs serve outlying areas; plan tiers commonly range 25–100 Mbps depending on line‑of‑sight.
    • Wireline: cable/fiber exists in pockets of towns; many rural addresses remain on legacy DSL or rely on mobile hotspots.
    • Satellite: Starlink and other LEO options are widely available and used at the fringes of cell coverage.
  • Tower siting: macro sites line major roadways and towns; coverage gaps persist in low‑lying and heavily wooded tracts. In‑building coverage can be challenging in metal and stone construction, increasing use of Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters.

Estimated counts and shares (Milam County, 2024)

  • Unique mobile phone users: ~21,500
  • Smartphone users: ~17,500–18,000
  • Household smartphone/cellular data subscription (any mobile broadband): about 65–70% of households
  • Wireless‑only (no landline) households: ~66%
  • Smartphone‑only or primarily mobile for home internet: ~24% of households

Implications

  • Mobile networks function as a primary broadband on‑ramp for a larger slice of Milam County than in Texas overall; fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps left by limited fiber outside town centers.
  • Investment that extends mid‑band 5G beyond town cores (plus additional backhaul) would deliver outsized value locally by lifting average speeds and reducing evening congestion.
  • Digital inclusion efforts should pair device and plan subsidies with home‑network solutions (signal boosters, Wi‑Fi calling education) to address construction‑related indoor coverage issues common in rural housing stock.

Data notes

  • Population/household counts use recent Census/ACS estimates; mobile adoption and wireless‑only shares are derived from ACS device/subscription tables, national NHIS wireless‑only trends, and Pew Research smartphone adoption benchmarks, adjusted for Milam County’s older age structure and rural broadband availability. Coverage characterizations reflect FCC/National Broadband Map carrier filings and observed deployment patterns across rural central Texas as of 2024.

Social Media Trends in Milam County

Milam County, TX social media snapshot (2025)

County and user base

  • Population: 24,754 (U.S. Census, 2020). Adults ≈ 19,000.
  • Estimated adult social media users: 15,000–16,000 (≈78–82% of adults), aligning with rural U.S. adoption rates from Pew Research.

Most-used platforms (share of Milam County adults, estimated)

  • YouTube: 75–80%
  • Facebook: 70–75%
  • Instagram: 30–35%
  • TikTok: 20–25%
  • Snapchat: 15–20%
  • Pinterest: 28–32%
  • LinkedIn: 15–20%
  • X (Twitter): 12–15%
  • WhatsApp: 15–18%
  • Nextdoor: 8–12%

Age-group patterns (localized from national/rural usage)

  • Teens (13–17): Heavy on TikTok/Snapchat; Instagram strong; Facebook light.
  • 18–29: YouTube and Instagram dominant; TikTok/Snapchat widely used; Facebook moderate.
  • 30–49: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram moderate; TikTok lower but present.
  • 50–64: Facebook and YouTube lead; Pinterest grows; Instagram/TikTok modest.
  • 65+: Facebook first, YouTube second; other platforms niche.

Gender breakdown (share of users by platform, estimated)

  • Overall usage is roughly balanced by gender locally.
  • Platforms skewing female: Facebook (+5–10 pts vs men), Pinterest (≈70% female).
  • Platforms skewing male: YouTube (≈55–60% male), Reddit/X (≈60–70% male).
  • Instagram is near parity; TikTok slightly female-leaning.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Texas counties and likely in Milam

  • Facebook is the community hub: local news, school sports, churches, civic updates, and Marketplace buying/selling.
  • Video-first consumption: YouTube for long/evergreen content; Facebook Reels/Instagram Reels and TikTok for short, timely clips.
  • Groups and events matter: engagement concentrates in city- and school-based groups (e.g., Cameron, Rockdale, Thorndale) and event pages.
  • Messaging is central: Facebook Messenger is the default; WhatsApp used within Spanish-speaking/bilingual networks and for family groups.
  • Timing: Peaks evenings (7–10 p.m. CT) and weekends; lunch-hour check-ins are common among shift and industrial workers.
  • Content that performs: local faces and places, youth sports highlights, severe weather updates, road/worksite notices, deals under clear price points, and short how‑to or behind‑the‑scenes videos from local businesses.
  • Ads/playbook: Facebook/Instagram for reach and community targeting; YouTube for brand storytelling; TikTok for discovery among under‑40s. Use tight geofences around Rockdale/Cameron trade areas and radius targeting for events; lean on lookalikes from engaged followers rather than broad interests.

Notes on methodology

  • County population is from the U.S. Census (2020). Platform shares and age/gender skews are modeled for Milam County by applying Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption rates, with rural and older‑median‑age adjustments typical of non‑metro Texas counties. Percentages are best‑available estimates intended for planning and benchmarking.

Other Counties in Texas