Real County

Real County, Texas – key demographics

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census Demographic Profile (DP1) and P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data.

Population size

• Total population: 2,758

Age

• Median age: 52
• Under 18: 19%
• 18 to 64: 52%
• 65 and over: 30%

Gender

• Male: 52%
• Female: 48%

Race and Hispanic/Latino origin

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): 36%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 61%
• Black or African American alone: <1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Two or more races, not Hispanic: ~2%

Households and families

• Total households: ~1,150
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~64% of households
• Average family size: ~2.8
• Married-couple households: ~52%
• Nonfamily households: ~36%
• Households with children under 18: ~21%
• Householder age 65+ living alone: ~13%

Insights

• Small, rural county with an older age profile (about 3 in 10 residents are 65+).
• Majority White non-Hispanic, with a substantial Hispanic/Latino population.
• Household sizes are modest, and family households are the majority.

• Context: Real County, Texas has 2,758 residents (2020 Census) across roughly 700 square miles—about 4 people per square mile—making it one of the least-dense counties in the Hill Country and raising last‑mile connectivity costs.

• Estimated email users: 1,850–2,000 residents (about 65–72% of the population) use email at least monthly. This reflects rural broadband adoption and the county’s older age profile.

• Age distribution of email users (estimated):

  • 13–34: 25–28%
  • 35–64: 42–46%
  • 65+: 26–31% The share of 65+ users is elevated due to the county’s high senior population.

• Gender split of email users (estimated): approximately balanced, 49–51% female to male.

• Digital access trends:

  • Home broadband subscription lags the Texas average; many households are mobile‑only or use satellite/fixed wireless. Fiber/cable tend to be limited to town centers (e.g., Leakey, Camp Wood); outlying ranchlands rely on LTE or satellite.
  • Terrain and distance produce coverage gaps and lower speeds outside main corridors; line‑of‑sight issues affect fixed wireless.
  • Public institutions (schools, library, county offices) serve as important access points. Email is the primary channel for local government, healthcare, and utilities, with seasonal tourism adding intermittent network load.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Real County, Texas

Headline

• Mobile adoption is widespread but meaningfully below the Texas average. Residents rely on cellular data for home internet at much higher rates, driven by sparse infrastructure, rugged terrain, and lower fixed-broadband availability.

User estimates (modeled from ACS-style household/device adoption patterns for rural Texas and 2020–2023 population levels)

• Population and households: ~2,800–3,000 residents; ~1,200–1,300 households.
• Residents with an active mobile phone: ~2,050–2,250 (roughly 70–75% of residents), of whom ~1,800–1,950 use smartphones.
• Household device ownership:
  • Households with at least one smartphone: ~80–85% (Texas: ~90%+).
  • Households relying on cellular data for home internet (mobile-only or mobile-primary): ~28–35% (Texas: ~15–20%).
  • Households with no home internet subscription: ~18–24% (Texas: ~10–13%).
• Plan mix: Prepaid share of lines materially higher than state average (~40–50% vs Texas ~25–35%), reflecting income mix, credit frictions, and signal variability that discourages long contracts.

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns)

• Age:
  • 18–34: smartphone adoption ~90–95%; heavy mobile-first usage; video and social apps dominate.
  • 35–64: smartphone adoption ~80–90%; elevated hotspot use for home/work due to limited fixed options.
  • 65+: smartphone adoption ~55–65% (Texas seniors: ~70–80%); basic/voice-and-text devices remain common; reliance on family hotspots for telehealth.
• Income and education:
  • Lower-income households show higher mobile-only dependence and prepaid uptake than the state average; cost sensitivity and limited wired choices drive this.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Hispanic residents (a large local share) skew more mobile-first than non-Hispanic White residents, consistent with statewide patterns, but absolute adoption rates are 5–10 points lower across groups than statewide peers due to availability and affordability constraints.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage and technology:
  • 4G LTE is the backbone; coverage is strongest along US-83, TX-55, and TX-337 and around Leakey and Camp Wood. Canyons and valleys produce frequent dead zones off-corridor.
  • 5G availability is limited and largely low-band/DSS; mid-band 5G is sparse to absent outside town centers and highway corridors. mmWave is not present.
• Capacity and performance:
  • Sector loading spikes seasonally (summer tourism on river corridors and motorcycle routes) and during weekend events; noticeable slowdowns and higher latency occur in afternoons and early evenings.
• Sites and backhaul:
  • Very low tower density for the land area (fewer than 20 macro sites countywide), with most sites hugging highways and town centers; terrain limits line-of-sight.
  • Backhaul is a mix of microwave and limited fiber; fiber-fed anchor institutions exist, but many remote sectors are microwave-fed, constraining peak throughput.
• Providers:
  • AT&T and Verizon offer the most consistent footprint; T-Mobile coverage is patchier outside corridors.
  • Fixed alternatives are limited: pockets of FTTH or VDSL in towns, regional WISPs on ridgelines, and growing Starlink adoption in outlying areas. Many households use phone-based hotspots as primary home internet.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet-capable AT&T sites are present on primary corridors, improving resilience for emergency services relative to commercial-only coverage.

How Real County differs from statewide trends

• Lower smartphone penetration: household smartphone presence is 5–10 percentage points below the Texas average.
• Higher mobile-only reliance: mobile-only or mobile-primary home internet is roughly 1.5–2x the state share.
• More prepaid usage: prepaid lines form a significantly larger slice of subscriptions than statewide.
• Older-device and voice-centric cohort persists: seniors retain basic phones at a higher rate than the state average, keeping overall smartphone share lower.
• Patchy 5G: low-band 5G exists but mid-band depth is thin; Texas metros now rely heavily on mid-band for capacity.
• Greater geographic variability: coverage and speeds swing dramatically within short distances due to terrain; this is far less pronounced in most Texas counties.
• Stronger seasonality: tourism-driven capacity strain produces more frequent slowdowns than typical Texas rural counties not on major recreation corridors.

Implications

• Operators: Greatest ROI is from adding mid-band carriers on existing sites, limited infill along US-83/TX-337 gaps, and fiber backhaul upgrades to relieve microwave bottlenecks.
• Public sector: Targeted middle-mile and tower co-location incentives would reduce dead zones and narrow the adoption gap among seniors and low-income households.
• Residents and businesses: Mobile hotspots remain a pragmatic primary or backup solution; where available, FTTH materially improves reliability over phone-based tethering.

Real County, TX social media snapshot (estimated 2025)

Overall usage

• Residents 13+ using at least one social platform: 72–78% (about 2,100–2,300 people)
• Daily users among social users: 70–75%
• Average platforms per user: 2–3

Age breakdown (penetration within each age group; share of local social users)

• 13–17: 90–95% use; ~7–9% of local social users
• 18–34: 85–90% use; ~20–22%
• 35–64: 70–75% use; ~48–52%
• 65+: 45–55% use; ~20–25%

Gender breakdown (share of local social users)

• Female: 52–55% overall; stronger on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest
• Male: 45–48% overall; stronger on YouTube, X (Twitter), Reddit

Most-used platforms among local social-media users (multi-select)

• Facebook: 72–78%
• YouTube: 70–75%
• Instagram: 28–35%
• TikTok: 25–32%
• WhatsApp: 20–28% (notably higher among Hispanic residents)
• Snapchat: 12–18%
• X (Twitter): 12–18%

Behavioral trends

• Community-centric use: Facebook Groups and Messenger anchor local news, school updates, church notices, buy/sell/trade, and emergency/wildfire information.
• Seasonal spikes: Instagram/TikTok posting climbs in summer (Frio River tourism) and during fall hunting season; small businesses boost Facebook posts around holiday and event weekends.
• Video-first habits: YouTube for how‑to and outdoor/ranch content; short-form Reels/TikTok for event recaps and local promos.
• Private coordination: Heavy reliance on Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp for family, church, and team coordination; many interactions occur in closed groups.
• Trust and content performance: Posts from known local people and institutions outperform national pages; photo posts and short videos outperform link-only posts.
• Usage patterns: Smartphone-first; evening peaks around 6–9 pm; patchy coverage in remote areas leads to delayed posting and batch engagement.

Method note: Figures are localized estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s rural and U.S. platform adoption data (2021–2023) and applied to Real County’s older-leaning, rural demographic profile from recent ACS/Census patterns. Percentages reflect share of local social-media users unless noted.