Shackelford County

Shackelford County, Texas — Key demographics

Population size

• 3,105 (2020 Decennial Census)
• Change since 2010: −8.1% (2010: 3,378)

Age structure (ACS 2019–2023)

• Median age: ~45 years
• Under 18: ~23%
• 65 and over: ~23%

Gender (ACS 2019–2023)

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census; Hispanic is of any race)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~81%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~15%
• Black/African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Asian: <1%
• Two or more races/Other: ~2%

Household data (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~1,260
• Average household size: ~2.4–2.5
• Family households: ~67% of all households; married-couple majority
• Owner-occupied housing: ~78%
• Median household income: about $60–65k
• Persons in poverty: ~10–12%

Insights

• Small, declining population with an older age profile and high owner-occupancy
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a meaningful Hispanic minority
• Household sizes are modest and family households predominate, typical of rural West Texas

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

Shackelford County, TX email usage (estimates grounded in 2020 Census, ACS 2018–2022, and Pew Research):

• Population and users: Population 3,105; adults (~18+) ≈ 2,390. Estimated adult email users ≈ 2,150 (≈90% of adults, reflecting slightly lower rural adoption than national).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–34: ≈520 (24%)
  • 35–54: ≈787 (37%)
  • 55–64: ≈335 (16%)
  • 65+: ≈509 (24%)
• Gender split among users: Male ≈ 1,100 (51%); Female ≈ 1,050 (49%). Usage rates are effectively parity by gender.
• Digital access and devices:
  • Households ≈ 1,240; broadband subscription ≈ 80% (~990 households).
  • Computer ownership ≈ 91% of households; smartphone access among adults ≈ 85% (rural-adjusted).
  • About 12% of households are smartphone‑only for internet, elevating mobile email reliance.
• Trends: Home broadband adoption has risen to ~80%, with increased use of fixed wireless and satellite relative to urban areas; daily email checking among users is common (≈80%+).
• Density/connectivity context: Extremely low population density (~3.4 people/sq mi across ~914 sq mi) and dispersed settlements increase last‑mile costs, contributing to patchier high‑speed options and greater dependence on non‑fiber technologies.

Mobile phone usage in Shackelford County, Texas — summary and state-level contrasts

Anchor facts

• Population: 3,105 (2020 Census). The county is entirely nonmetropolitan and sparsely populated, with small population centers in and around Albany and Moran.
• National/state context used for estimates: U.S. smartphone ownership ≈90% of adults (Pew, 2023), rural ownership typically 5–8 percentage points lower than urban; U.S. mobile lines exceed population (≈1.1–1.2 lines per resident; CTIA, 2022). FCC mobile coverage maps (2023) show markedly denser 4G/5G footprints in Texas metros than in rural counties like Shackelford.

User estimates (orders of magnitude, based on the above)

• Total mobile lines in service (phones, hotspots, tablets, IoT): roughly 3,400–3,800 (≈1.1–1.2 lines per resident applied to the 2020 population).
• Adult smartphone users: about 1,900–2,200. This applies a rural smartphone ownership rate of roughly 82–86% to an adult population of approximately 2,300–2,500 (typical adult share in a rural Texas county of this size).
• Primary mobile internet users (people relying on cellular as their main at‑home connection): meaningfully higher share than the Texas average, driven by limited fixed broadband options outside town centers; expect a notable fraction of households to hotspot regularly, especially beyond Albany/Moran.

Demographic breakdown and what it means for usage

• Older age profile than Texas overall: With a larger 65+ share than the state average, basic‑phone use and talk/text‑centric plans are more common, and smartphone ownership runs a few points below the Texas average.
• Working‑age adults (35–64) are the core of heavy mobile data use, including work, navigation, ranching/field ops, and hotspotting where fixed broadband is weak.
• Teens and young adults show near‑universal smartphone use, but absolute numbers are small due to the county’s size; this group disproportionately drives social/video traffic where 5G or strong LTE is available.

Digital infrastructure points (what is on the ground)

• Networks present: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile operate in the county. UScellular does not serve Texas.
• Coverage pattern: FCC 4G LTE maps show reliable highway/town coverage (US‑180, TX‑6, TX‑351 corridors) with thinner coverage on ranchland and section roads; indoor coverage can drop off quickly outside Albany/Moran without boosters.
• 5G availability: Low‑band 5G is present along primary corridors; mid‑band 5G (capacity/speed) is far patchier than in Texas metros, so peak speeds are lower and more variable.
• Fixed broadband backstop: Fiber is limited outside town blocks; many rural addresses depend on legacy DSL, fixed wireless ISPs, or satellite (Starlink/HughesNet/Viasat). That scarcity pushes more households to rely on cellular for primary or backup internet, especially during outages.
• Capacity and latency: Fewer macro sites per square mile than urban Texas yields greater cell‑edge time, lower median speeds, and higher latency—most noticeable in the evening when sectors near town centers and along highways congest.

How Shackelford differs from Texas overall

• Adoption level: Smartphone ownership is slightly lower than the statewide average due to an older age mix, but mobile dependence (using cellular for home connectivity) is higher than average because fixed alternatives are sparser.
• Network experience: Coverage is adequate for voice/text and navigation on main roads and in town, but 5G capacity and consistent high‑throughput data are markedly behind Texas metro norms; performance drops rapidly off‑corridor.
• Device/plan mix: Higher share of basic and budget smartphones and prepaid or lower‑data plans among seniors; higher incidence of hotspotting and signal‑booster use among households and small businesses outside town limits.
• Usage pattern: More utilitarian traffic (voice, messaging, maps, ag/field apps) and less continuous high‑bitrate video streaming than the Texas urban profile, constrained by capacity and coverage variability.

Key takeaways

• Expect roughly two thousand adult smartphone users in the county, with total active mobile lines outnumbering residents.
• Coverage is strong enough for everyday use in and between towns, but off‑highway ranchland remains variable; users commonly augment with boosters.
• Compared with Texas overall, Shackelford shows slightly lower smartphone penetration yet higher reliance on cellular for home internet, and it lags metros in mid‑band 5G capacity and median speeds.

Social media usage in Shackelford County, TX (2024–2025)

Snapshot

• County context: Small, rural West-Central Texas county centered on Albany; older age mix than the Texas average and high mobile dependence for internet access.
• Overall penetration: Estimated 80–84% of adults use at least one social media platform (modeled from Pew Research 2024 adoption rates, adjusted for the county’s older age skew).
• Access backdrop: Roughly three-quarters of households have a home broadband subscription, with smartphone access notably higher; most usage is mobile-first.

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults; modeled)

• YouTube: 78–82%
• Facebook: 64–70%
• Instagram: 30–36%
• Pinterest: 28–34%
• TikTok: 20–26%
• Snapchat: 18–22%
• WhatsApp: 16–20%
• X (Twitter): 14–18%
• Reddit: 10–14%
• LinkedIn: 10–14%
• Nextdoor: 8–12% (localized pockets; smaller reach than Facebook groups)

Age groups (share using any social platform; modeled)

• 18–29: 93–95%
• 30–49: 88–92%
• 50–64: 74–80%
• 65+: 55–62% Notes: Overall county usage is pulled down slightly by an above-average 50+ population share; the youngest cohorts match or exceed national norms.

Gender breakdown and tendencies

• Overall split among social media users approximately mirrors the adult population (roughly half female, half male).
• Women skew higher on Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest; men skew higher on YouTube, Reddit, and X.
• Engagement patterns: Women drive community-group participation and local event sharing; men over-index on video/watch-time and sports/news accounts.

Behavioral trends and practical insights

• Facebook is the community backbone: school sports, church updates, civic information, yard/estate sales, missing pets, and local alerts dominate. Facebook Groups outperform Pages for organic reach.
• YouTube is a primary entertainment and how-to source: local interest in home, ranching/land, hunting/fishing, equipment maintenance, DIY, and regional sports highlights; significant connected-TV viewing.
• Messaging is critical: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous for coordination; WhatsApp sees niche use among cross-county/oilfield and Latino networks.
• Short-form video is rising: TikTok and Instagram Reels consumption is growing, especially under 35; cross-posted local clips perform well when under 15 seconds with captions.
• Snapchat remains central for teens/young adults: daily streaks, location filters, and private friend groups sustain usage; limited value for broad community messaging.
• X (Twitter) use is utilitarian: severe weather, high school sports scores, and government/TxDOT updates; low posting among the general public.
• Nextdoor reach is patchy: active in specific Albany neighborhoods but materially smaller than Facebook community groups for local issues.
• Timing: Peaks before work (6–9 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekend midday spikes for local events and sports results.
• Content that travels locally: hyperlocal news, weather and wildfire alerts, school activities, hunting/wildlife sightings, road closures, church/community service, and “lost and found.”
• Advertising note: Radius-targeted Facebook/Instagram placements and short vertical video outperform static creatives; posts tied to dates/locations (games, fundraisers, festivals) get strong shares in Groups.

Method and sources

• Modeled county estimates combine: Pew Research Center (Social Media Use, 2024) platform adoption, weighted by a rural/older age mix; U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census for population baseline; ACS 2019–2023 for age structure and internet/broadband context); and FCC fixed broadband availability data. Figures represent best-available local estimates given the absence of platform-disclosed county-level metrics.