Sabine County

Sabine County, Texas — key demographics (latest available U.S. Census Bureau data; primarily 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates, with 2020 Census where noted)

Population size

• Total population: ~9,900 (ACS 2019–2023; 2020 Census: 9,894)

Age

• Median age: ~51
• Under 18: ~17–18%
• 18 to 64: ~54–55%
• 65 and over: ~28–29%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive where noted; Hispanic can be any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~82%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~9–10%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~6%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.5–1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.2–0.5%

Households and housing

• Total households: ~4,450–4,500
• Average household size: ~2.2
• Family households: ~62% of households; average family size: ~2.7–2.8
• Married-couple households: ~48–50%
• Households with children under 18: ~19–21%
• 1-person households: ~33–35% (living alone age 65+: ~15–17%)
• Tenure: owner-occupied ~82–85%; renter-occupied ~15–18%

Key insights

• Older age structure (median age ~51; nearly 3 in 10 residents are 65+) compared with Texas overall.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population, with smaller Black and Hispanic communities.
• Small household sizes and high share of one-person and senior households.
• High homeownership rate relative to state averages.

Sabine County, TX snapshot (pop. ≈9,894; density ≈20 people/sq. mile):

• Estimated email users: ≈6,300 adults (≈64% of total population, ≈77% of adults). Method: rural internet adoption ≈84% of adults; ≈92% of online adults use email.
• Age distribution of email users (est.): • 18–29: ≈12% • 30–49: ≈28% • 50–64: ≈30% • 65+: ≈30%
• Gender split among users: ≈49% male, 51% female, mirroring the county’s slightly older, more female-leaning population.
• Digital access trends: • Home broadband adoption lags urban Texas; mobile-only access is comparatively common. • Fixed high-speed tiers cluster in town centers; outside, many households rely on older DSL, fixed wireless, satellite, or mobile hotspots. • Older and lower-income households show the lowest subscription and email-use rates; working-age adults exhibit near-universal email use.
• Local density/connectivity facts: • Sparse settlement (~20/sq. mile) and large rural/forested tracts raise last‑mile costs and limit provider competition, damping broadband take‑up. • Population is older than the Texas average, which modestly reduces overall email penetration despite strong usage among connected residents.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Sabine County, TX (2024–2025)

Executive snapshot

• Population context: Small, rural East Texas county of roughly 10,000 residents with an older age profile and below‑state median income. These fundamentals shape adoption, plan mix, and network performance.
• Standout differences vs Texas overall: Lower smartphone adoption and unlimited‑plan uptake, higher reliance on cellular for home internet, more coverage variability (forest and lake effects), and slower mid‑band 5G buildout outside primary corridors.

User estimates

• Adult mobile phone users: Approximately 7,200–7,800 adults use a mobile phone (about 88–93% of adults, below Texas’ ~94–96%).
• Smartphone users: Roughly 6,300–6,800 adults use smartphones (about 80–86% of adults, versus Texas ~88–92%).
• Feature‑phone users: About 9–12% of adult users keep a basic/feature phone (higher than Texas’ ~4–6%).
• Cellular-as-primary home internet: About 18–25% of households rely mainly on a cellular data plan for home internet (well above urban Texas), driven by limited wireline options in parts of the county.
• Plan mix: Unlimited smartphone plans at roughly 55–65% of lines (below Texas’ ~75–80%). Prepaid/MVNO penetration is elevated at about 40–50% of lines (Texas ~30–35%), reflecting price sensitivity and credit constraints.
• Data consumption: Typical monthly smartphone data use is in the ~12–18 GB/line range (below Texas’ ~20–25 GB), with notable pockets of heavier use in cellular‑only households.

Demographic drivers and usage patterns

• Age: A sizable 65+ population means lower smartphone and app adoption, more voice/SMS usage, and slower device replacement cycles; residents under 45 mirror statewide app and streaming behavior but are constrained by coverage in outlying tracts.
• Income and education: Lower median income increases prepaid, shared data, and hotspot‑based home connectivity; work crews (construction/forestry) rely on LTE push‑to‑talk, messaging, and offline‑capable apps.
• Race/ethnicity: Majority White with small Black and Hispanic communities; smartphone‑only internet is disproportionately used by lower‑income and Hispanic households, consistent with rural Texas patterns.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage fabric:
  • 4G LTE is the baseline countywide, but service is corridor‑centric (US‑96, TX‑21, TX‑87, TX‑103, and around Hemphill/Pineland).
  • Forest canopy, rolling terrain, metal‑roof housing, and shoreline development along Toledo Bend Reservoir create indoor and fringe‑area gaps.
• 5G footprint:
  • Low‑band 5G from major carriers is present along primary corridors and town centers; mid‑band 5G capacity is spotty outside Hemphill/Pineland and highway segments. mmWave is absent.
  • Result: Speeds swing from single‑digit Mbps in wooded hollows to 100+ Mbps on corridor mid‑band sectors, with most everyday use in the 5–30 Mbps LTE/low‑band range.
• Backhaul and towers:
  • Tower density is low by Texas standards; sites cluster along highways and near public safety/utility assets. Long inter‑site distances (plus trees) drive signal variability.
  • Fiber backhaul is present on main routes; off‑corridor sectors may be microwave‑fed, limiting peak capacity and consistency.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • FirstNet coverage focuses on county facilities and corridors; off‑grid and lakeside areas still benefit from boosters or satellite backup during storms.
  • E‑911 location and indoor reliability improve markedly with Wi‑Fi calling; many homes and small businesses use it to compensate for weak indoor RSRP/RSRQ.
• Cross‑border dynamics:
  • Proximity to Louisiana across Toledo Bend can introduce edge‑of‑cell behavior and intermittent roaming prompts near the dam and lakefront.

How Sabine County differs from Texas statewide

• Adoption: Smartphone ownership and unlimited‑plan uptake are several points lower; feature‑phone retention is several points higher.
• Access: A materially higher share of households use cellular as their primary home internet due to limited cable/fiber passings away from town centers.
• Performance: Mid‑band 5G coverage and average speeds lag urban/suburban Texas; variability by micro‑location is pronounced because of forests, water, and sparse tower grids.
• Spending and plans: Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO and hotspot‑based solutions; longer device replacement cycles.
• Use cases: More emphasis on voice/SMS, offline‑friendly apps, and push‑to‑talk in field work; streaming and gaming patterns track with where mid‑band 5G is reachable.

Implications and practical insights

• Network investment with the highest payoff: additional mid‑band 5G sectors and infill small macro sites along lakeside communities and forested collector roads; prioritized fiber backhaul upgrades to reduce sector congestion.
• Demand outlook: Stable to modest growth in smartphone adoption as younger cohorts age in and fixed broadband remains uneven; cellular home internet will remain a durable substitute in fringe areas.
• User guidance: For residents in wooded or metal‑roof homes, combine a carrier with proven corridor coverage, a modern device with strong band support, Wi‑Fi calling, and (where needed) a directional LTE/5G router or certified booster.

Method notes

• Figures are best‑available county‑level estimates synthesized from recent federal datasets (e.g., ACS computer/internet indicators), rural‑Texas benchmarks, and carrier footprint patterns through 2024–2025. These capture direction and magnitude relative to Texas statewide while reflecting Sabine County’s rural and environmental constraints.

Sabine County, TX social media snapshot (2025)

Population baseline

• Residents: ≈10,000–10,500; adults (18+): ≈8,000–8,400
• Age mix: older-leaning; median age ≈53; about 30% are 65+; roughly even gender split
• Connectivity: an estimated 65–75% of households have broadband; mobile-only access is common in rural areas

How many residents use social media

• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈65–75% of adults (about 5,300–6,200 people)

Most-used platforms (share of adults)

• Facebook: 60–70% locally (U.S. benchmark 68%)
• YouTube: 55–65% locally (U.S. 83%; lower locally due to older mix and rural bandwidth)
• Instagram: 20–30% locally (U.S. 47%)
• TikTok: 15–25% locally (U.S. 33%)
• Snapchat: 10–15% locally (U.S. 31%; mostly under 30)
• Pinterest: 20–30% locally (U.S. 35%; skew female 30–64)
• X/Twitter: 10–15% locally (U.S. 22%)
• WhatsApp: 8–12% locally (U.S. 29%; lower in rural, English-dominant markets) Note: Local ranges are modeled from national adoption by age, weighted to Sabine County’s older age profile.

Age-group patterns (local estimates)

• 18–29: 90–95% use at least one platform; Instagram 70–85%; Snapchat 60–75%; TikTok 60–70%; Facebook 40–55%
• 30–49: 85–90% use; Facebook 70–80%; YouTube 85–90%; Instagram 55–65%; TikTok 35–45%
• 50–64: 70–80% use; Facebook 65–75%; YouTube 70–80%; Instagram 30–40%; TikTok 20–30%
• 65+: 55–65% use; Facebook 55–65%; YouTube 45–55%; Instagram 20–25%; TikTok 10–15%

Gender breakdown of usage (tendencies)

• Facebook: balanced by gender
• Instagram and TikTok: women modestly higher
• Pinterest: women substantially higher
• YouTube and Reddit: men higher These gender gaps mirror U.S. patterns and are evident locally within age cohorts.

Behavioral trends in Sabine County

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups (churches, local government, schools, hunting/fishing, buy/sell/trade) and Marketplace for local commerce
• Short video is rising but bandwidth-sensitive: Facebook Reels/TikTok for outdoors, lake life (Toledo Bend), small business promos, and event recaps
• Local information beats national: weather alerts, road conditions, high school sports, church announcements, and event flyers outperform general news
• Messaging-first interactions: Facebook Messenger is the default for inquiries and informal customer service
• Posting cadence: evening (6–9 p.m.) and weekend activity spikes; weekday mid-morning engagement among retirees
• Visuals drive engagement: photos of catches at the lake, community events, and youth athletics perform best; simple text posts underperform
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is preferred over Craigslist; porch pickups and cash/Venmo are common
• Trust signals matter: posts with recognizable local faces, endorsements from pastors/coaches, or participation by civic orgs gain faster traction

Method and sources

• Demographic baseline and connectivity from U.S. Census Bureau/ACS (2019–2023).
• Platform adoption benchmarks from Pew Research Center’s Social Media Use in 2024.
• Local percentages are modeled by applying Pew’s age-specific adoption rates to Sabine County’s older-skewed age structure, yielding the stated ranges.