Orange County

Key demographics — Orange County, Texas Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5-year estimates; figures are estimates rounded for clarity.

Population

• Total population: ~86,000
• Growth context: roughly flat since 2020; up modestly from 2010

Age

• Median age: ~39 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18–64: ~59%
• 65 and over: ~17%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race and ethnicity

• White, non-Hispanic: ~73%
• Black or African American: ~10%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~11%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Asian: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander/Other: <1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~32,000
• Average household size: ~2.6 persons
• Family households: ~68% of households
• Married-couple families: ~50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~30%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~76%
• Housing units: ~35,000; vacancy rate: ~8–9%

Insights

• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with notable Black and Hispanic communities
• Age structure slightly older than the Texas average
• Homeownership rate is higher than the Texas average, with moderate household size

Orange County, TX snapshot (pop. ~85,000; ~32,000 households)

• Email users: ~62,000 residents (≈73% of total; ≈92% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: 6% (~3,700)
  • 18–34: 26% (~16,100)
  • 35–54: 34% (~21,100)
  • 55–64: 15% (~9,300)
  • 65+: 19% (~11,800)
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male.

Digital access and usage:

• Household broadband subscription: 85% (27,200 households); ~15% lack home broadband.
• Households with a computer (any type): 91% (29,100).
• Smartphone‑only internet households: 14% (4,500), indicating a meaningful mobile‑reliant segment.
• Email remains the most universal online activity locally, mirroring national adoption across working‑age adults, with slightly lower use among seniors.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Population density ≈260 residents per square mile.
• Broadband penetration ≈850 subscribing households per 1,000, supporting strong email reach for commerce, schools, and public services.
• Digital gaps persist where home broadband is absent; mobile‑only users depend on cellular networks for email, which can affect reliability and attachment‑heavy tasks.

Mobile phone usage in Orange County, Texas — summary and insights

Key takeaways that differ from Texas overall

• Slightly lower smartphone penetration among adults than the statewide average, driven by an older age profile and modestly lower household incomes.
• Higher reliance on phones as a primary home internet connection (“cellular-only”/smartphone-only households) than the Texas average, reflecting affordability constraints and patchier fixed broadband in outlying areas.
• Near-universal 4G coverage but more pronounced performance variability and gap pockets away from the I‑10 corridor; 5G midband coverage is present but less uniformly dense than in major Texas metros.
• Prepaid plans make up a larger share of active lines than the Texas average, consistent with regional income and plan-price sensitivities.

User estimates (2024, modeled from Census/ACS, FCC, and major survey benchmarks)

• Total residents: ~85,000.
• Estimated smartphone users: 57,000–63,000 (roughly 68–74% of residents and 85–90% of adults).
• Adults using mobile internet weekly: ~60,000–65,000 (most smartphone owners are daily users).
• Households primarily relying on cellular data for home internet: roughly 16–20% in Orange County versus a lower statewide share (Texas typically in the low-to-mid teens).
• Prepaid share of mobile lines: meaningfully above the statewide average (expect a mid-to-high 30s percentage locally versus lower statewide), reflecting cost management and credit constraints.

Demographic drivers and usage patterns

• Age: Orange County’s population is older than the Texas average. Older adults are less likely to own smartphones and less likely to be smartphone-only for home internet, pulling down overall penetration versus Texas.
• Income: Median household income trails Texas; mobile adoption remains high, but plan choices skew to prepaid and value tiers. Families are more likely to share data plans and delay device upgrades, which slows 5G handset penetration compared with Texas’s large metros.
• Race/ethnicity: The county has a higher non-Hispanic White share and a smaller Hispanic share than Texas overall. Language-driven mobile usage patterns (e.g., Spanish-first content, WhatsApp reliance) are present but less dominant locally than in major Texas metros.
• Work patterns: Industrial, construction, and logistics employment along the Sabine/Orange industrial corridor sustains heavy daytime mobile voice/text use and push-to-talk/FirstNet adoption among public safety and contractors.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage:
  • 4G/LTE: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile report coverage across nearly all populated areas; service is strongest along I‑10, in Orange, Vidor, Bridge City, West Orange, and Orangefield.
  • 5G: All three carriers provide 5G. T‑Mobile’s midband 5G is broadly available along the I‑10 corridor and town centers; Verizon and AT&T C‑band/NR deployments are present in denser pockets (Orange/Bridge City/near key highways). Low-band 5G and LTE predominate toward marshy/rural fringes.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Median tested mobile speeds in the Beaumont–Port Arthur–Orange area trail Texas’s large metros and the statewide median, with bigger swings during peak hours and during severe-weather events.
  • Indoor performance varies by construction type; metal-roof industrial and warehouse facilities often require boosters/DAS for consistent coverage.
• Resilience:
  • The county is hurricane- and flood-prone. Carriers have hardened backhaul routes, added backup power at macrosites, and routinely stage COWs/COLTs for restoration. Recovery priorities center on the I‑10 corridor, public-safety hubs, hospitals, and petrochemical facilities.
• Cross-network considerations:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) usage is material among public safety; priority/preemption helps maintain service during incidents.
  • Roaming and handoff across Louisiana border corridors are generally seamless but can add latency near the state line.

How Orange County differs from Texas at large

• Adoption: High, but 1–3 percentage points lower adult smartphone penetration than the Texas average due to age/income mix.
• Reliance on mobile for home internet: Higher than the Texas average, with a notably larger smartphone-only/cellular-only household share.
• Plan mix and devices: Greater prepaid penetration and longer device replacement cycles dampen rapid 5G handset uptake relative to metro Texas.
• Network experience: Comparable coverage in towns and along I‑10, but more variability in rural/wetland zones; fewer small cells and midband 5G nodes than in urban Texas yield lower median speeds.
• Content/communications: SMS/MMS and voice remain critical for reach; app usage broadly mirrors Texas, but data-heavy applications (e.g., 4K video, cloud gaming) see more constraints outside town centers.

Implications for outreach and service design

• Optimize for LTE and low‑band 5G as baselines; design apps and sites to degrade gracefully on variable throughput and latency.
• Keep SMS and lightweight messaging in the channel mix; don’t assume ubiquitous high-capacity 5G.
• Consider prepaid-friendly offers and device financing flexibility; promote Wi‑Fi offload where fixed broadband is available.
• For field operations and public-facing services, plan for weather-driven disruptions and prioritize failover connectivity along the I‑10 and industrial corridors.

Notes on sources and method

• Estimates synthesize the latest available U.S. Census/ACS Computer and Internet Use data, FCC mobile coverage filings, and major national/state mobile adoption surveys through 2023–2024. Figures are modeled to county demographics and infrastructure; ranges reflect uncertainty at the county level while preserving directionally accurate differences from Texas statewide trends.

Social media usage in Orange County, Texas (adult population focus, best-available 2024 estimates modeled from Pew Research 2023/2024 and U.S. Census/ACS 2022; figures rounded)

Snapshot

• Adult base: ≈65,000 adults (of ≈85,000 total residents)
• Adults using any social media: ≈72% of adults ≈47,000 users

Most‑used platforms (share of all adults who use the platform)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• TikTok: ~33%
• LinkedIn: ~30%
• Pinterest: ~30%
• Snapchat: ~27%
• X (Twitter): ~22% Note: Multi‑platform use is common; percentages overlap.

Usage frequency (share of each platform’s users who visit daily)

• Facebook ~70% daily; Instagram ~60%; Snapchat ~65%; TikTok ~55%; YouTube ~55%; X ~45%

Age breakdown (share of adults in each age band using any social media)

• 18–29: ~85%+
• 30–49: ~80%
• 50–64: ~70–75%
• 65+: ~45% Platform skews by age:
• Under 35: strong on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; heavy daily messaging (Snapchat, Instagram DMs)
• 35–54: Facebook and YouTube dominant; Instagram growing
• 55+: Facebook and YouTube lead; TikTok/Instagram adoption rising but still minority

Gender breakdown

• Overall user base mirrors population (≈51% women, 49% men)
• Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, X, Reddit
• Local buy/sell, school, and church group activity is notably female‑skewed; sports/outdoors and news commentary skew more male

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Facebook is the community hub: school districts, city/county offices, churches, and civic groups drive high engagement; Marketplace and community buy/sell/trade groups are very active
• Weather and emergency updates spur spikes in posting/resharing during storms, hurricanes, flooding, and plant incidents; local officials and media pages see rapid follower growth during events
• YouTube is used for DIY, home repair, hunting/fishing, and automotive content; strong “how‑to” and contractor research behavior
• Instagram and TikTok shape dining, festivals, youth sports, and small‑business discovery; short‑form video outperforms static posts for under‑35s
• Messaging is central: Facebook Messenger for families and groups; Snapchat is the default for teens/college‑age
• Peak activity: evenings (7–10 p.m.) on weekdays; weekend mid‑day to evening. Local sports nights and severe‑weather windows drive real‑time spikes
• Trust pathways: users rely on local Facebook groups/pages and known community figures; recommendations and word‑of‑mouth outperform generic ads
• Cross‑posting behavior: businesses often post first on Facebook, then repurpose to Instagram; TikTok is used selectively for reach/virality rather than announcements

Implications for outreach

• Prioritize Facebook pages and groups for reach and timely updates; include short video
• Use Instagram Reels/TikTok for under‑35 awareness and event promotion; emphasize local faces/places
• Leverage YouTube for instructional content and service explanations; optimize titles/thumbnails for “how‑to” searches
• During storms or emergencies, schedule redundant updates across Facebook + Messenger + Instagram, and coordinate with local group admins

Sources

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use (2023–2024)
• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 1‑year/5‑year estimates for Orange County, TX (latest available as of 2024)