Motley County

Motley County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 1,063 residents (2020 Decennial Census)

Age structure

• Median age: about 49 years (ACS 5-year)
• Under 18: ~21%
• 65 and over: ~30% Insight: Skews older than Texas overall, with nearly one-third 65+.

Gender

• Male ~51%
• Female ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (race alone unless noted)

• White: ~86–89%
• Black/African American: ~1–3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Asian: <1%
• Two or more races: ~7–9%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~18–20% Insight: Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a notable Hispanic minority.

Household data (ACS 5-year)

• Households: ~500
• Persons per household: ~2.1–2.2
• Family households: ~60–65%; married-couple families ~50%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–80% Insight: Small households and high homeownership typical of rural counties.

• County snapshot: Motley County has about 1,063 residents (2020 Census) across roughly 990 sq mi, yielding an extremely low density near 1.1 people per sq mi. The county seat is Matador.
• Estimated email users: ~850 residents (≈80% of population) use email regularly, based on rural internet adoption and near‑universal email use among internet users.
• Age distribution of email users (approx.): Under 18: 10%; 18–34: 18%; 35–54: 30%; 55–64: 15%; 65+: 27%. The county skews older than Texas overall, so a notable share of users are 55+.
• Gender split among email users: ~51% male, 49% female, mirroring the county’s slight male majority and near‑equal adoption across genders.
• Digital access and trends: Roughly 70–75% of households maintain a broadband subscription, with the remainder relying on cellular hotspots or satellite. Fixed wireless and fiber are expanding via state and federal programs (e.g., Texas Broadband Development Office/BEAD), while satellite internet has improved service for remote ranchlands. Mobile coverage is strongest along primary corridors (e.g., US‑62/70) and patchier in sparsely populated areas. Public Wi‑Fi at the library/schools supplements home access.
• Takeaway: Despite ultra‑low density, most residents have practical email access, with growth driven by new fiber, fixed wireless, and satellite options.

Motley County, TX mobile phone usage summary (2025)

Executive snapshot

• Population baseline: 1,060± (2020 Census: 1,063; population has remained near-flat). Land area 990 sq mi; very low density (1.1 persons/sq mi).
• Current estimate of mobile phone users (any cellphone): ~840–880 residents (79–83% of population).
• Current estimate of smartphone users: ~700–750 residents (66–71% of population).
• Network mix: Predominantly 4G LTE; spotty low-band 5G around population centers/road corridors; few indoor-complete zones without Wi‑Fi calling.
• Usage pattern: Voice/SMS still materially used; mobile data reliance episodic and sensitive to signal quality.

User estimates and device mix (derived from Census age structure for rural West Texas and current national/rural ownership rates)

• Adults carrying any mobile phone: ~780–820.
• Teens (13–17) with phones: ~55–60.
• Smartphone users by age:
  • 18–64: ~450–490 users (roughly mid‑80s% smartphone adoption within this cohort).
  • 65+: ~200–230 users (roughly low‑to‑mid‑60s% smartphone adoption; pulls down the countywide average).
  • 13–17: 55–60 users (95% adoption among this small cohort).
• 5G-capable device share among smartphone users: ~45–50% (Texas statewide is materially higher).
• Prepaid/MVNO share of lines: ~35–45% of active handsets (above the Texas average), reflecting price sensitivity and coverage-driven carrier selection.
• Average device replacement cycle: ~3.5–4.5 years (longer than Texas metro areas by ~12–18 months).

Demographic drivers of usage

• Older age structure: Residents 65+ comprise roughly one-third of the population, depressing smartphone and 5G penetration versus the state average.
• Household income and plan selection: Lower median incomes and fixed budgets increase the prevalence of prepaid/MVNO plans and capped data allowances.
• Ethnic composition: A smaller but meaningful Hispanic population (about one-fifth of residents) contributes to strong messaging-app use within family networks despite overall lower countywide data consumption.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Coverage footprint: AT&T and Verizon provide the most reliable macro coverage along US‑82/70 and around Matador; T‑Mobile has low‑band rural coverage pockets but is less consistent indoors and between towns.
• Network generation:
  • LTE is the primary layer countywide.
  • Low-band 5G (e.g., 600/700/850 MHz) appears around the county seat and major corridors; mid‑band 5G capacity layers are limited or absent.
  • 3G is retired; legacy devices require VoLTE.
• Capacity and performance:
  • Outdoor LTE typically adequate for voice, messaging, and standard app use; video bitrate and upload performance degrade away from corridors or in low-lying terrain.
  • Evening congestion occurs when households use hotspots for home access, especially during school months and severe-weather periods.
• Indoor experience: Metal-roof structures and distance to towers make indoor signal marginal; Wi‑Fi calling and external antennas are common mitigations.
• Backhaul and resiliency: Backhaul is a mix of microwave and limited fiber; redundancy is sparse, so single-point power or transport outages can temporarily darken sectors until generators or COWs/COLTs are deployed.
• Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) coverage is typically available around public-safety facilities and the county seat, improving priority access during incidents.

How Motley County differs from Texas overall

• Lower penetration:
  • Smartphone adoption: ~66–71% in Motley vs ~88–92% for Texas adults.
  • 5G-capable devices: ~45–50% vs ~60–70% statewide.
• Plan mix: Larger prepaid/MVNO share (by roughly +10–15 percentage points), driven by price sensitivity and the ability to pick carriers with the best local signal.
• Usage profile:
  • Per‑smartphone mobile data consumption is lower (roughly mid‑teens GB/month vs low‑20s GB statewide), but hotspot usage spikes in areas lacking wired broadband.
  • Voice and SMS remain comparatively more prominent in daily communications.
• Upgrade cadence: Devices stay in service longer, slowing 5G adoption and eSIM uptake relative to metropolitan Texas.
• Coverage quality: Service is highway‑ and town‑center‑oriented with larger dead zones between sites; indoor coverage often depends on Wi‑Fi calling—conditions that are far less common in urban/suburban Texas where dense mid‑band 5G and indoor DAS/small cells are prevalent.

Implications and actionable insights

• For carriers: Additional low‑band sites or sector adds near ranching operations and school/health facilities, plus targeted mid‑band 5G nodes in Matador, would materially lift experience. Prioritize power/backhaul redundancy and maintain COW/COLT readiness during severe weather.
• For residents and institutions: Wi‑Fi calling, external LTE/5G antennas, and selecting carriers with the strongest local low‑band signal materially improve reliability. Community hotspots at libraries/schools continue to bridge evening-capacity gaps.
• For public agencies: Leveraging FirstNet-capable devices and ensuring generator-backed sites at critical facilities mitigates the impact of localized outages.

Figures above are current, county-specific estimates grounded in the latest Census counts, rural adoption research, and observed rural network deployment patterns in West Texas; they are intended for planning-grade accuracy.

Social media usage in Motley County, Texas (short breakdown; 2024)

Context and user base

• Population: 1,063 (U.S. Census, 2020).
• Adults (18+): roughly 800–850.
• Internet use: ~85–90% of residents use the internet; ~75–80% of households have a home internet subscription (NTIA 2023; Texas/rural benchmarks).
• Adult social media users: approximately 600–700 (about 70–80% of adults; Pew 2024).

Most-used platforms (estimated share of Motley County adults; mapped from Pew 2024 rates with typical rural offsets)

• YouTube: 78–82% (≈620–700 adults)
• Facebook: 64–70% (≈520–600)
• Instagram: 40–48% (≈320–410)
• Pinterest: 30–36% (≈240–300)
• TikTok: 26–34% (≈210–290)
• WhatsApp: 22–28% (≈180–240)
• Snapchat: 20–26% (≈160–220)
• X/Twitter: 18–23% (≈150–190)
• Reddit: 18–22% (≈150–180) Notes: Nextdoor skews urban/suburban; likely minor local penetration (<15%).

Age groups (adoption patterns; Pew 2024 applied locally)

• Teens (13–17): social media is near-universal; heavy YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook minimal.
• 18–29: ~95% use social media; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat strong; YouTube universal; Facebook used but not primary.
• 30–49: ~85–90%; Facebook and Instagram core; YouTube routine; TikTok rising.
• 50–64: ~70–80%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest notable.
• 65+: ~50–60%; Facebook primary; YouTube for news/how‑to; lower multi‑platform use. Motley County’s older age structure means a larger share of Facebook/YouTube relative to teen‑heavy platforms.

Gender breakdown (platform tendencies; Pew 2024)

• Overall social media adoption is similar for men and women locally.
• Female-leaning: Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight), Pinterest (strong).
• Male-leaning: Reddit and X/Twitter; YouTube slightly male-skewed.
• TikTok and Snapchat are closer to balanced among younger users.

Behavioral trends (rural Texas patterns observable in Motley County)

• Community coordination: Facebook Groups and Pages (civic updates, school sports, churches, county notices); Marketplace is the default for buy‑sell‑trade.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for weather, farm/ranch how‑tos, equipment repairs; TikTok/shorts for entertainment, recipes, and crafts.
• Messaging gravity: Facebook Messenger and SMS carry most private sharing; WhatsApp is niche (family ties, cross‑border or oilfield contacts).
• Peak activity: Evenings and weekends; spikes during severe weather, local events, school seasons.
• Creator base: Small but active; local businesses, boutiques, and service providers post on Facebook/Instagram; short‑form video adoption is growing but bandwidth-sensitive.
• Trust and discovery: Word‑of‑mouth amplified via Facebook; local influencers and admins of community groups drive reach more than national creators.
• Access constraints: Mobile‑first use; some households have data caps or variable broadband, favoring compressed short video and fewer live streams.

Method note

• Motley County lacks direct, platform-by-platform measurement. Figures above are 2024 estimates derived by applying Pew Research Center social media adoption rates (with rural adjustments) to Motley County’s population and age structure, and cross-checked against NTIA internet-use benchmarks for Texas/rural areas.

Sources

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population).
• NTIA Internet Use Survey (2023) for internet adoption and household subscription benchmarks.
• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (platform adoption by age, gender, community type).
• Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media and Technology (for teen platform patterns).