Rusk County

Rusk County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 54,406 (2020 Census total population)

Age

• Median age: ~39 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~25%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (mutually exclusive; 2020 Census)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~56–57%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~20%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~17%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0.1%
• Other, non-Hispanic: ~0.5%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~19,600
• Average household size: ~2.6 persons
• Family households: ~70% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~74%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census (PL 94-171, Demographic Profile) and American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

• Scope: Rusk County, Texas (2020 pop. 52,214; land ≈924 sq mi; density ≈56 people/sq mi)
• Estimated email users: ≈39,700 residents (≈76% of total population), derived from age- and adoption-adjusted rates (Pew/ACS benchmarks).
• Age mix among email users (share of users): 13–17: 7.8%; 18–34: 24.0%; 35–54: 34.6%; 55–64: 14.7%; 65+: 19.0%.
• Gender split among users: female ≈51%, male ≈49% (email adoption is essentially parity by sex).
• Digital access and usage:
  • Household internet subscriptions (ACS 2018–2022): ≈88% have any internet; ≈78% have a broadband subscription (cable/DSL/fiber/fixed wireless).
  • Device access: ≈91% of households have a computer; ≈12% are smartphone‑only for home internet.
  • Network availability (FCC filings, 2023–2024): ≈95% of serviceable locations can get 25/3 Mbps; ≈85% can get ≥100/20 Mbps; fiber passings concentrated in/near Henderson with ongoing expansion.
  • Mobile: County population centers have near‑universal 4G LTE; 5G service present along major corridors with infill continuing.
• Insight: Email use is mainstream across working‑age adults and strong among seniors; remaining gaps track areas with lower fixed‑broadband adoption and smartphone‑only reliance. Rural density (≈56/sq mi) and dispersed housing elevate last‑mile costs, making fixed wireless and new fiber builds pivotal for closing the remaining access/adoption gap.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Rusk County, Texas

Headline user estimates (modeled from Census ACS, CDC/NHIS wireless-only, Pew/NTIA adoption rates, and rural adjustments)

• Population and households: About 54–55 thousand residents and roughly 20–21 thousand households. Adults (18+) are about 41 thousand.
• Adult smartphone users: Approximately 35,000 adults use smartphones in Rusk County (about 85% adoption among adults, a few points below the Texas average near 88–90%).
• Wireless-only households (no landline): About 14,000–15,000 households (around 70–72%), broadly in line with rural Texas and slightly above the statewide share.
• Households relying on cellular as their only home internet: Approximately 3,800–4,400 households (about 18–22% of households), higher than the Texas average (roughly low-teens), reflecting limited fixed-broadband options in some Census tracts.
• Prepaid vs postpaid: Prepaid lines are materially more common than the Texas average. An estimated 30–35% of active lines are prepaid in Rusk County (vs roughly mid-20s statewide), consistent with lower median income and higher rurality.

Demographic breakdown and how it shapes usage

• Age structure
  • 65+ share: About 18–20% in Rusk County vs roughly 13–14% statewide. Smartphone adoption among older adults in rural areas runs lower (around upper 60s to low 70s percent), pulling down the countywide average and contributing to more basic- or limited-data plans.
  • Working-age adults (35–64) and young adults (18–34) show adoption rates near 90% and >95%, respectively, similar to statewide, but overall countywide adoption remains a few points lower because of the older mix.
• Income and education
  • Median household income is notably below the Texas median, and bachelor’s attainment is lower. Both factors correlate with a higher share of prepaid plans, more Android device penetration, and greater use of mobile hotspots for home connectivity.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Rusk County’s composition is more White non-Hispanic and Black and less Hispanic than Texas overall. Smartphone ownership rates by race/ethnicity are broadly similar statewide; in Rusk County the main differences in usage stem more from age, income, and rurality than from race/ethnicity itself.

Digital infrastructure and market conditions

• Coverage and technology mix
  • 4G LTE is effectively ubiquitous along primary corridors and in towns; indoor coverage can be inconsistent in sparsely populated and forested areas.
  • Low-band 5G from major carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) is present; mid-band 5G (which drives much higher speeds) is available in and around population centers and along major highways but is patchier than in Texas metros.
  • Typical real-world speeds: LTE/low-band 5G in the county often delivers roughly tens of Mbps outdoors, with mid-band 5G sites yielding triple-digit Mbps where present. This is materially below median speeds seen in major Texas metros where dense mid-band 5G is common.
• Carriers and public safety
  • All three national carriers operate; AT&T’s Band 14 (FirstNet) improves public-safety coverage. T-Mobile’s low-band spectrum (600 MHz) bolsters rural reach; Verizon’s mid-band 5G build is more concentrated near larger towns and corridors.
• Gaps and reliability
  • Terrain and tree cover create dead zones off-corridor, particularly in more sparsely populated southern and eastern parts of the county. Voice/text reliability is generally strong; high-throughput data performance drops indoors and off the main roads.
• Fixed-broadband interplay
  • Cable/DSL/fiber availability is uneven outside town centers. Local telephone cooperatives and state/federal programs are expanding fiber, but many outlying households still lean on mobile data and hotspots. This helps explain the higher share of mobile-only home internet compared with the Texas average.

How Rusk County differs from the Texas statewide picture

• Slightly lower smartphone adoption: Countywide adult adoption near 85% vs roughly 88–90% statewide, primarily due to older population share and lower incomes.
• Greater mobile substitution: A higher portion of households rely on cellular as their sole home internet (around 18–22% vs low-teens statewide), reflecting patchier fixed-broadband choices.
• More prepaid usage: Prepaid penetration estimated at 30–35% vs roughly mid-20s statewide.
• Slower 5G in practice: Mid-band 5G is less dense; average mobile speeds are below big-city Texas norms even though basic coverage is broad.
• Wider urban–rural performance gap: Town centers and highways see good service; off-corridor areas experience more variability than the statewide average.

Key takeaways

• Around 35,000 adults in Rusk County use smartphones today, with usage patterns shaped more by rural infrastructure and age/income mix than by race/ethnicity.
• Mobile networks cover the county broadly, but capacity and indoor performance trail Texas metro standards due to sparser mid-band 5G and fewer dense sites.
• Mobile-only home internet and prepaid adoption are both meaningfully higher than the state average, underscoring the role of cellular service as a primary on-ramp to the internet for many households outside town centers.

Rusk County, TX social media snapshot (estimated 2025)

How these figures were derived: Best-available local estimates created by applying 2023–2024 U.S. platform adoption rates (Pew Research Center) to Rusk County’s age–gender profile (U.S. Census/ACS), with adjustments typical for rural East Texas. Percentages below refer to share of local adults unless noted.

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: 70–75%
• Typical number of platforms per adult user: 3–4
• Primarily mobile access; evening and weekend usage peaks; heavy reliance on private messaging and Groups

Most-used platforms (adult penetration)

• YouTube: 78–82%
• Facebook: 64–68%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• TikTok: 25–30%
• Snapchat: 20–24%
• Pinterest: 25–30% (skewed female)
• X (Twitter): 15–18%
• Reddit: 10–14%
• LinkedIn: 9–12%
• Nextdoor: 5–8%

Age-group patterns (share of each age group using platform)

• Teens 13–17: YouTube ~95%; Snapchat 75–80%; TikTok 70–75%; Instagram 65–70%; Facebook 25–30%
• Adults 18–29: YouTube ~95%; Instagram 75–80%; TikTok 60–65%; Snapchat 55–60%; Facebook 50–55%
• Adults 30–49: YouTube 85–90%; Facebook 70–75%; Instagram 45–50%; TikTok 30–35%; Snapchat 25–30%
• Adults 50–64: YouTube 80–85%; Facebook 65–70%; Instagram 25–30%; TikTok 15–20%
• Adults 65+: YouTube 60–65%; Facebook 50–55%; Instagram 15–20%; TikTok 8–12%

Gender breakdown (share of user base by platform)

• Facebook: 56–60% female
• Instagram: 55–58% female
• TikTok: 58–62% female
• Snapchat: 60–65% female
• Pinterest: 70–75% female
• YouTube: 55–60% male
• X (Twitter): 60–65% male
• Reddit: 65–70% male
• LinkedIn: ~52–55% male

Behavioral trends

• Community-first on Facebook: Local news, school districts, churches, high school sports, civic and emergency updates, and buy–sell–trade groups drive frequent engagement; Marketplace is a major shopping channel
• Video everywhere: How‑to, faith, local sports highlights, hunting/fishing, auto/truck content perform best on YouTube and Facebook; short-form video (TikTok/Reels) is growing for local businesses and events
• Youth messaging and ephemerals: Teens and college‑age lean on Snapchat for daily communication; TikTok and Instagram set youth culture and music trends
• Discovery and consideration: Pinterest influences home, crafts, recipes among women; Instagram drives restaurant, boutique, and service discovery among 18–34
• News and politics: Facebook remains the primary locus for local and state political discussion and sharing of local media stories; X usage is niche among news‑interested men
• Access realities: Mobile‑first consumption, with bandwidth constraints in rural areas favoring shorter videos, compressed uploads, and off‑peak viewing
• Ads and outreach: Strongest ROI via Facebook/Instagram geo‑targeting around Henderson, Tatum, Overton, New London; video and “message us” CTAs outperform link‑outs; offline conversions (calls, visits) are common

Usage frequency (among each platform’s users)

• Very frequent daily use is typical on Facebook and TikTok; roughly 7 in 10 Facebook users and 7 in 10 TikTok users engage daily; around 6 in 10 Instagram and Snapchat users are daily users; about half of YouTube users watch daily

Note: These are locality-adjusted estimates, not pass-through national figures; they reflect Rusk County’s older age mix and rural context, which elevates Facebook and slightly reduces Instagram/TikTok relative to urban counties.