Roberts County

Roberts County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 827 residents (2020 Decennial Census), down from 929 in 2010 (−11%)
• Extremely sparse: roughly 1 person per square mile

Age

• Median age: low-40s
• Age distribution (ACS, small-sample county; figures indicative): roughly 22–25% under 18; about 18–20% 65 and over

Gender

• Approximately 52% male, 48% female

Racial/ethnic composition (Hispanic is an ethnicity; sums may exceed 100% when combining race and ethnicity)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~85–90%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~8–10%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Black/African American: <1%
• Asian: <1%
• Two or more races/Other: ~1–2%

Households

• ~330 households (2020), average household size ~2.5
• Predominantly family households; high share of married-couple households
• Household mix typical of rural Texas: smaller renter share, larger owner-occupied share, and a meaningful share of one-person households (especially among older adults)

Notes

• Totals and 2020 counts are from the Decennial Census; age, household composition, and detailed race/ethnicity shares reflect multi-year ACS estimates and can have wide margins of error due to the county’s very small population.

• Context: Roberts County, TX population 827 (2020) across ~924 sq mi; density ≈0.9 people/sq mi. County seat: Miami. One of the most sparsely populated counties in Texas, which shapes connectivity and adoption.

• Estimated email users

  • Adults (18+): ~570 users (≈92% of 18+ population)
  • Total (13+): ~620 users (≈75% of total population)

• Age distribution of email users (approximate counts)

  • 13–17: ~52
  • 18–29: ~86
  • 30–49: ~206
  • 50–64: ~152
  • 65+: ~127

• Gender split

  • Population and email usage are roughly balanced by gender (≈50/50 overall), with minor age‑related differences; no material overall gap in email adoption.

• Digital access and trends

  • Most households have a computer and an internet subscription; email usage closely tracks broadband availability.
  • Sparse settlement and long last‑mile distances increase service costs; fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps outside Miami and along ranchlands.
  • 4G/5G coverage is strongest along main corridors; coverage is patchier in remote areas.
  • Adoption is stable to rising, with the largest recent gains among adults 50+ as mobile access and telehealth/benefit portals increase reliance on email.

Roberts County, Texas: mobile phone usage snapshot (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)

Population baseline

• Population: about 830 residents (2020 Census), spread over roughly 900+ square miles; essentially all rural. County seat: Miami.

User estimates (all ages)

• Mobile phone users (any mobile): ~690 people (≈83% of residents).
• Smartphone users: ~585 people (≈71% of residents).
• Adult smartphone adoption: ≈79% of adults, compared with ≈88–90% statewide. The gap is driven by an older age profile and rural coverage constraints.

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age
  • 10–17: ~90% smartphone adoption; heavy use of messaging, social, and school platforms.
  • 18–34: ~96% smartphone adoption; most are mobile-first for everyday internet.
  • 35–54: ~90% smartphone adoption; common use of productivity, navigation, agriculture/oilfield apps.
  • 55–64: ~82% smartphone adoption; rising use of telehealth and banking apps.
  • 65+: ~60–65% smartphone adoption; higher share use basic phones or tablets on Wi‑Fi.
• Race/ethnicity
  • County population is predominantly non-Hispanic White with a modest Hispanic minority; smartphone ownership is high across groups, but Hispanic households are more likely to be mobile-only for home internet than non-Hispanic White households.
• Income and household status
  • Mobile-only internet households (cellular data but no fixed home broadband): ≈20% in Roberts County versus ≈13% statewide. This reflects limited wired options and long drop distances.
  • Shared devices are more common in multigenerational and lower-income households; single-line and prepaid plans are used at higher rates than the Texas average.

Digital infrastructure (what’s on the ground)

• Coverage footprint
  • LTE is the de facto baseline across travel corridors (US‑60, TX‑70) and in Miami; service degrades quickly in the breaks along the Canadian River and away from highways.
  • 5G is present primarily as low-band coverage (good reach, modest speeds). Mid-band 5G (the faster layer) is sparse to absent countywide; mmWave is not present.
• Performance
  • Typical downlink: 10–60 Mbps on low-band 5G/LTE in and near Miami and along highways; single-digit to no signal in canyons and remote pastureland. Statewide 5G medians routinely exceed 100 Mbps in metros, so Roberts County trails on raw speed.
  • Uplink is often 2–10 Mbps; video calling can be inconsistent outside town.
• Capacity and backhaul
  • Few macro sites serve a large land area; many sectors rely on microwave backhaul. This limits peak capacity compared with fiber-fed urban sites.
• Device and plan mix
  • Higher share of ruggedized phones and hotspots for ranching, oilfield, and service work than the state average.
  • Public-safety use of Band‑14/FirstNet is prevalent relative to population, supporting sheriff/volunteer fire, but consumer 5G mid-band remains limited.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Fiber-to-the-premise is limited to a small number of locations; most households rely on legacy DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite (including Starlink). As a result, more residents lean on mobile data for home connectivity than is typical statewide.

Key trends that differ from Texas overall

• Adoption level: Adult smartphone adoption is 8–11 percentage points lower than the Texas average due to older age structure and patchy coverage.
• Network layer: Roberts County runs mostly on LTE and low-band 5G; Texas metros increasingly ride mid-band 5G with far higher median speeds.
• Mobile-only dependence: About 1 in 5 households rely on cellular as their primary home internet, materially higher than the statewide share.
• Usage profile: More emphasis on voice/SMS, push-to-talk, navigation, ag/oilfield apps, and hotspotting; less continuous high-bit-rate streaming relative to state averages due to speed and data-cap constraints.
• Reliability gaps: Terrain-driven dead zones and fewer macro sites create more frequent coverage holes and weather-related outages than the statewide norm.

Bottom line

• Expect broad but thin coverage: strong enough for messaging, maps, and light video in town and along highways; inconsistent beyond those corridors.
• Compared with Texas overall, Roberts County has fewer mid-band 5G options, lower median mobile speeds, a higher share of mobile-only households, and slightly lower smartphone adoption—yet mobile remains the primary on-ramp to the internet for many residents, and targeted upgrades (additional sites, fiber backhaul, and fixed wireless builds) would yield outsized benefits for both residents and local industries.

Social media in Roberts County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

Context

• Population: 827 residents (U.S. Census, 2020). Adults are roughly 75–80% of residents.
• Estimated adult social media users: 450–520 (about 70–80% of adults), consistent with rural U.S. adoption rates observed by Pew/NTIA in 2023–2024.

User stats and demographics

• Age mix among social media users (share of local social users):
  • 13–17: 6–8%
  • 18–29: 18–22%
  • 30–49: 35–40%
  • 50–64: 20–25%
  • 65+: 10–15%
• Gender breakdown among social media users:
  • Female: 52–55%
  • Male: 45–48%
  • Notes: Women are overrepresented on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men skew higher on YouTube/X/Reddit.

Most‑used platforms (share of Roberts County adults using each at least monthly; modeled from rural usage patterns)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 20–30%
• Snapchat: 18–25%
• Pinterest: 25–30% (predominantly female)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 10–15%
• WhatsApp: 10–15%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited presence in sparsely populated areas)

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the hub for local life: county and school updates (Miami ISD), wildfire/severe weather information, ranching/community groups, churches, and buy/sell/trade via Marketplace.
• YouTube is widely used for how‑to content, ag/ranch operations, outdoor and equipment reviews; much of this is watched on smart TVs.
• Instagram use concentrates among younger adults and parents, with cross‑posting from Facebook; Stories/Reels perform better than static posts.
• TikTok adoption is concentrated among teens and younger adults; local scenery, sports highlights, and short ranch/outdoor clips get traction.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is primary; Snapchat is common among teens/younger users; WhatsApp usage exists but is niche.
• Engagement peaks: early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (12–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.). Weekdays mid‑week and Sunday evenings are reliably active.
• Marketplace is a high‑value channel for vehicles, equipment, and household goods; trust and local identity (real names, known families, recognizable landmarks) strongly influence response.
• X is low for day‑to‑day socializing but sees utility during state‑level news and weather events.

Sources and methodology

• Population: U.S. Census (2020 decennial). Platform adoption and age/gender skews reflect 2023–2024 findings from Pew Research Center, NTIA, and major platform audience reports, adjusted to rural/U.S. small‑county baselines. County‑level platform usage is not directly enumerated; figures above are the best available, consistently derived estimates.