San Saba County

Key demographics for San Saba County, Texas

• Population

  • 5,730 (2020 Census)
  • ~5,900 (2023 Census Bureau population estimate)

• Age

  • Median age: ~46 years (ACS 2019–2023)
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 65 and over: ~25%

• Gender

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race and ethnicity (Hispanic of any race)

  • Non-Hispanic White: ~67%
  • Hispanic/Latino: ~27%
  • Black/African American: ~2%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
  • Asian: <1%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~3%

• Households

  • Total households: ~2,200 (ACS 2019–2023)
  • Average household size: ~2.35
  • Family households: ~65% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~50% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~73%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey (5-year); 2023 Population Estimates Program.

San Saba County, TX (pop ≈5,900; area ≈1,138 sq mi; ≈5.2 people/mi²) is very rural, shaping digital behavior.

Estimated email users: ≈3,800 residents (≈64% of total population), based on rural adult internet adoption (~83%) and the fact that ≈92% of internet users use email.

Age distribution of email users:

• 18–29: 17%
• 30–49: 33%
• 50–64: 28%
• 65+: 22% Slightly older skew than the U.S. average, reflecting local demographics.

Gender split: ≈51% male, 49% female among users, mirroring the county’s population.

Digital access and connectivity:

• Roughly three-quarters of households have an internet subscription; about one-quarter of connected households are smartphone‑only, indicating mobile‑first behavior and potential limitations (data caps, weaker rural coverage).
• Fixed broadband is strongest in and around the city of San Saba and along main corridors; many outlying areas rely on fixed wireless or legacy DSL, affecting reliability and speeds.
• Public Wi‑Fi (library, schools, civic sites) remains an important supplement for lower‑income and senior residents.

These figures localize national email norms and American Community Survey rural internet patterns to San Saba’s low-density context.

Mobile phone usage in San Saba County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

Context and population

• Population: approximately 5,900 residents (2023 estimate), about 2,400 households.
• Older and more rural than Texas overall: roughly 24–26% age 65+ (Texas 13%), lower median household income ($50–60k vs Texas ~ $70k+), and a smaller share of urbanized areas.

User estimates

• Unique mobile subscribers (active mobile line per person): 4,300–4,700 users (roughly 75–83% of the total population and ~90–95% of adults).
• Smartphone users: 3,800–4,200 adults (about 80–88% of adults), modestly below Texas overall (roughly 89–92%).
• 5G-capable devices among smartphone users: about 60–70% locally vs 80–85% statewide; upgrade cycles are longer in the county (typical replacement 3.3–3.8 years vs ~2.5–3.0 in Texas).
• Mobile-only internet households (cellular data plan and no other home internet): approximately 17–22% of households (about 400–520), notably higher than Texas overall (~12–14%).
• Prepaid plan share: elevated at an estimated 35–45% of lines (Texas ~28–33%), reflecting price sensitivity and variable coverage that nudges users toward flexible plans.

Demographic patterns shaping usage

• Age: High share of older adults raises the share of voice-and-text-centric use and slows adoption of the newest devices and services (e.g., eSIM-only phones and 5G features).
• Income and education: Lower median income and smaller college-educated share correlate with higher prepaid usage, longer device lifetimes, and heavier reliance on a single handset per adult.
• Household structure: Smaller, older households mean fewer multi-line family plans and slightly lower per-household device counts than urban Texas counties.
• Race/ethnicity: Hispanic share is below the Texas average, but Hispanic households in the county are more likely than non-Hispanic households to be mobile-only for home internet, consistent with statewide patterns.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carrier presence: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile all serve the county. AT&T’s FirstNet footprint supports public safety; T-Mobile’s low-band 5G has broad outdoor reach; Verizon’s coverage is present but mid-band capacity is sparser than in Texas metros.
• Coverage type: 4G LTE covers most populated areas and primary road corridors outdoors; indoor coverage varies with building materials and distance to towers. 5G is predominantly low-band (wide-area but lower capacity); mid-band 5G capacity sites are limited. mmWave is effectively absent.
• Performance: Typical median mobile speeds in populated parts of the county run about 20–40 Mbps down and 3–8 Mbps up, materially below Texas statewide medians (roughly 70–120 Mbps down, 8–20 Mbps up). Latency is usually 35–60 ms, higher than in Texas metros.
• Reliability: Signal variability increases outside the county seat and along river valleys and rugged ranchland. During peak hours and events, capacity constraints are more noticeable than in urban Texas due to fewer sectorized sites and limited backhaul.
• Infrastructure footprint: The county relies on widely spaced macro towers with limited small-cell density. Backhaul is a mix of microwave and fiber along main corridors; fiber-fed macro sites are fewer than in metropolitan Texas counties.

Trends that differ from Texas overall

• Adoption and device mix lag: Smartphone and 5G-device adoption trail the state by several points, driven by age and income mix and longer replacement cycles.
• Higher mobile-only reliance: A significantly larger share of households depend on cellular data as their primary home internet, reflecting gaps in fixed broadband and the need for portability across ranch and seasonal work sites.
• Prepaid-heavy market: Prepaid and month-to-month plans form a larger slice of lines than statewide, tied to budget considerations and coverage testing.
• Coverage quality vs coverage maps: While nominal LTE/5G coverage is widespread outdoors, real-world indoor coverage and capacity are less consistent than statewide averages, with more dead zones and lower mid-band 5G availability.
• Usage profile: Voice/SMS remain relatively more prominent; video streaming and high-bandwidth applications are constrained by data caps and variable throughput compared with urban Texas usage patterns.

Key takeaways

• Expect around 4,000+ adult smartphone users in San Saba County today, with most residents covered by at least one LTE network and growing—but still limited—5G availability.
• The county’s mobile experience is defined by broad outdoor coverage but lower capacity and speeds, higher reliance on mobile-only internet, and a more prepaid, cost-sensitive user base than Texas overall.
• Closing the gap with the state will depend on additional mid-band 5G deployments, more fiber backhaul to macro sites, and continued device refresh into 5G-capable handsets.

Sources and methods

• U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2022–2023) for population, age, household counts, income, and internet subscription types; Pew Research and national handset replacement surveys (2023–2024) for device ownership and upgrade cadence; FCC Broadband Data Collection and NTIA Indicators of Broadband Need (2024) for coverage and performance context; carrier public coverage disclosures (2024–2025). County figures are derived estimates calibrated to rural-Texas patterns and the county’s demographic profile.

Social media usage in San Saba County, TX (2024–2025 snapshot)

Context

• Population baseline: 5,730 (2020 U.S. Census). San Saba is a small, rural county; local usage patterns typically track U.S. rural trends.

Most-used platforms (adult usage benchmarks; Pew Research Center, 2024)

• YouTube: 83% of U.S. adults
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 47%
• TikTok: 33%
• Snapchat: 30%
• Pinterest: 35%
• X (Twitter): 27%
• LinkedIn: 30%
• Reddit: 22%
• Nextdoor: ~20%

How this maps to San Saba (rural county profile)

• Top platforms locally: Facebook and YouTube dominate overall reach; Instagram and TikTok are strong among under-35; Snapchat is highly concentrated among teens/young adults; Pinterest is meaningful among women; X and Reddit remain niche.
• Expect Facebook to slightly over-index vs national in rural communities, and Instagram/TikTok to under-index modestly among 35+.

Age-group usage patterns (directional, consistent with Pew 2024)

• 13–17: Heavy Snapchat and TikTok; Instagram common; Facebook mainly for groups/events.
• 18–29: High Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; strong YouTube; Facebook used but less central for daily posting.
• 30–49: Mixed stack—Facebook for community/family/Marketplace; YouTube for how‑to and entertainment; Instagram growing; TikTok adoption rising.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram present; TikTok limited but growing.
• 65+: Facebook first, YouTube second; limited Instagram/TikTok use.

Gender breakdown (national patterns that typically hold in rural Texas)

• Women: Higher likelihood of using Facebook and Pinterest; active in local groups, school/church updates, Marketplace.
• Men: Higher likelihood of using YouTube, Reddit, and X; strong engagement with how‑to, news/sports, and hobby content.
• Both genders: Instagram growth under 45; Messenger pervasive for coordination.

Behavioral trends observed in rural counties of similar size in Texas

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups and Pages function as the local noticeboard (events, school sports, church, civic alerts). Marketplace is a major commerce channel for farm/ranch equipment, vehicles, and household goods.
• Video-centric consumption: YouTube is the default for how‑to, DIY, ranching, repairs, and product research; short-form (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives discovery for food, outdoors, hunting/fishing, and local businesses.
• Messaging as infrastructure: Facebook Messenger (and to a lesser extent WhatsApp) is used for coordinating pickups, services, and community activities.
• Time-of-day patterns: Peak engagement evenings and weekends; event-driven spikes during school sports, festivals, hunting seasons, weather events, and local government announcements.
• Trust and locality: Higher engagement with content from recognizable local people, schools, churches, small businesses, and county offices; “face-in-frame” posts and candid video outperform polished ads.
• Purchase path: Common flow is discovery on Facebook/Instagram/TikTok → direct message or phone call → in-person transaction; reviews and local recommendations in groups materially influence choices.

Quick, definitive takeaways

• Reach: Facebook and YouTube are the only “near-universal” platforms locally; plan around them for countywide coverage.
• Under-35 growth: Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok are essential to reach teens and young adults; short-form video is the currency.
• Women’s commerce influence: Pinterest plus Facebook Groups/Marketplace drive many household purchases and event participation.
• Niche but valuable: X and Reddit are small audiences but can be influential for news, sports, and hobbyist communities.

Sources

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (San Saba County population).
• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (platform penetration by U.S. adults, including rural/urban patterns).