Swisher County

Swisher County, Texas – key demographics

Population size

• 6,971 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age (ACS 2019–2023)

• Median age: ~36 years
• Under 18: ~26%
• 18–34: ~20%
• 35–64: ~38%
• 65 and over: ~16%

Gender (ACS 2019–2023)

• Male: ~53%
• Female: ~47%

Racial/ethnic composition (primarily 2020 Census; ACS 2019–2023 for context)

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~56%
• White alone, non-Hispanic: ~36%
• Black or African American alone: ~5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0.3%
• Two or more races: ~2%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~2,300
• Average household size: ~2.7
• Family households: ~71%
• Married-couple families: ~49%
• Households with children under 18: ~33%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~69%
• Average family size: ~3.2

Insights

• Small, rural county with a Hispanic majority and a slightly male-skewed population.
• Household structure is family-oriented with high homeownership relative to urban areas.

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

• Scope: Swisher County, TX (pop. 6,971; land area ≈901 sq mi; density ≈7.7 residents/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ≈5,050 residents use email regularly (≈72% of total population; ≈93% of adults).
• Age adoption (share of each age group using email):
  • 18–29: 98%
  • 30–49: 97%
  • 50–64: 91%
  • 65+: 83%
• Gender split among users: roughly even (≈50% female, ≈50% male).
• Digital access and devices:
  • ≈76% of households have a broadband internet subscription.
  • ≈89% of households have a computer device.
  • ≈17% are smartphone‑only internet users, reflecting rural access patterns.
• Connectivity and density facts:
  • Coverage and speeds are strongest along the I‑27/US‑87 corridor through Tulia, where fiber backbones and upgraded mobile networks concentrate.
  • Fixed‑wireless and satellite fill gaps across sparsely populated farm and ranch areas, where long last‑mile distances raise deployment costs.
• Trend: Broadband subscription rates and typical speeds have risen since 2020 with fiber builds and 5G expansions, yet overall adoption remains below urban Texas averages due to lower density and affordability constraints.

Mobile phone usage in Swisher County, Texas — 2025 snapshot

Headline differences from Texas overall

• More mobile-only households, heavier reliance on cellular and fixed wireless access (FWA), and lower wireline broadband adoption than the state average.
• Older age profile and lower median income drive higher prepaid usage, longer device replacement cycles, and a stronger tilt toward Android.
• 5G mid-band capacity is concentrated along the I‑27 corridor and in towns; speeds and indoor coverage degrade quickly in outlying farm and ranch areas compared with urban Texas.

User estimates (people, households, lines)

• Population and households (2023–2024): ~7,400 residents; ~2,650 households.
• Adult smartphone users: ~4,800 (about 85% of ~5,650 adults).
• Total active mobile connections in the county (phones, tablets, hotspots, IoT): ~9,500–10,500 (about 1.3–1.4 lines per resident).
• Households with a smartphone present: ~90% of households (≈2,380 households).
• Households with any broadband subscription (wireline or cellular): 75% (≈1,990 households), below the Texas average (88%).
• Mobile-only internet households (cellular data plan but no other home internet): 22% (≈580 households), above the Texas average (14%).

Demographic drivers of usage (local vs Texas)

• Age 65+: ~20% vs ~13% statewide — older share depresses top-end smartphone and 5G plan uptake.
• Hispanic or Latino: ~55–60% vs ~40% statewide — increases Spanish-language app usage (e.g., WhatsApp), family remittance apps, and prepaid adoption.
• Median household income: roughly mid–$40Ks to upper–$40Ks vs low–$70Ks statewide — greater price sensitivity, more prepaid and budget Android devices.
• Poverty rate: around one-fifth vs mid-teens statewide — reinforces cost-conscious plans and slower upgrade cycles.

Device, OS, and plan mix

• OS split (handsets): Android ~60–65%; iOS ~35–40% (Texas metros are closer to parity or iOS-leading).
• Plan types: prepaid share ~35–45% of phone lines (vs ~25–30% statewide); multi-line postpaid family plans under-index.
• Hotspots and tablet lines see seasonal spikes tied to field work and school schedules.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carrier presence: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile provide countywide LTE; 5G mid‑band capacity largely along I‑27 (Tulia/Kress) and select tower sectors; low‑band 5G/LTE dominates elsewhere.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA): T‑Mobile and Verizon offer 5G Home/FWA in and near towns; LTE-based FWA serves outlying areas. FWA adoption is meaningfully higher than the Texas average due to limited affordable wireline options.
• Wireline broadband: legacy DSL and cable in Tulia/Kress; limited fiber-to-the-home outside select streets. State BEAD-funded fiber builds are slated for mid‑decade, but until then many households lean on mobile data.
• Coverage quality: strong along I‑27 and in town centers; patchier on farm-to-market roads and in metal-roof structures. Typical user experience away from the corridor is 5–15 Mbps on low‑band 5G/LTE with 1–2 bars indoors; mid‑band 5G along I‑27 commonly delivers 100–300 Mbps with good signal.
• Emergency and public services: dependable low‑band coverage is critical for E911 and telehealth; small dead zones persist in sparsely populated sections.

Behavioral patterns vs state

• Higher reliance on smartphones as the primary internet device; more conservative data use (SD video, heavier Wi‑Fi offload at schools, libraries, churches).
• Messaging and voice: elevated use of WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger for cross‑border family connectivity; slightly lower iMessage dependency than metro Texas.
• Commerce and work: agricultural operations use IoT/SIMs for irrigation controls, vehicle telematics, and asset tracking, boosting per‑capita connections despite modest population.

Implications

• For carriers: densifying mid‑band 5G near farm roads and adding rural small cells or repeaters would yield outsized performance gains; offer bilingual support, prepaid value tiers, and affordable device financing.
• For policymakers and providers: accelerated fiber buildouts plus sustained FWA spectrum capacity will reduce the county’s mobile‑only burden and improve educational and telehealth outcomes.

Notes on figures

• Counts and rates reflect the latest available public estimates (ACS 2019–2023 five‑year trends, FCC coverage filings through 2024, CTIA connections-per-capita benchmarks, and rural Texas usage patterns) scaled to Swisher County’s population and household base and rounded for clarity. Where county‑specific measurements are limited, values are modeled conservatively relative to statewide metrics.

Swisher County, Texas — social media usage snapshot (2025)

Baseline

• Population reference: 2020 Census count 6,971 residents; small, rural, older-leaning relative to Texas overall.

Overall social media penetration (modeled)

• Residents 13+ using at least one social platform: approximately 70–75% (roughly 4,200–4,700 people), consistent with rural U.S. adoption patterns.

Most-used platforms among adults 18+ (modeled share who use each)

• YouTube: ~75–80%
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~30–40%
• Pinterest: ~30–35%
• TikTok: ~25–35%
• Snapchat: ~25–35%
• WhatsApp: ~18–25%
• X (Twitter): ~15–22%
• Reddit: ~12–18%
• LinkedIn: ~15–22% Notes: In small rural communities, Facebook Groups and Marketplace usage is notably high; YouTube is widely used across ages.

Age-group usage profile (modeled)

• Teens 13–17: 85–90% on at least one platform; heavy on TikTok and Snapchat; YouTube near-universal for video.
• 18–29: 90–95%+; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat dominant; YouTube widely used; Facebook present but secondary.
• 30–49: 85–90%; Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram/TikTok used but lower than under-30s; Messenger common.
• 50–64: 75–80%; Facebook first, YouTube second; Pinterest notable (especially women).
• 65+: 50–60%; Facebook primary; YouTube for news/how-to; lower usage elsewhere.

Gender breakdown (modeled tendencies among adults)

• Women: Higher likelihood of Facebook (~+5–8 points vs men) and Pinterest; moderate Instagram and Snapchat.
• Men: Higher YouTube usage; more presence on Reddit and X; slightly lower Facebook than women.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Texas counties and likely in Swisher County

• Community-first Facebook behavior: heavy use of local groups for schools, churches, youth sports, civic updates, lost-and-found, and buy/sell (Marketplace).
• Video consumption over creation: broad YouTube and Facebook Reels/TikTok viewing; few frequent creators, many scrollers.
• Peak engagement windows: early morning (pre-work/school), lunch, and evenings; weekends show spikes around school sports and community events.
• Messaging reliance: Facebook Messenger is universal; WhatsApp present, aided by Spanish-speaking households; SMS still common for coordination.
• Trust and information: local pages (school district, county, EMS, churches) and word-of-mouth posts drive news and event discovery more than national outlets.
• Commerce: local businesses favor boosted Facebook posts and short videos; event flyers and fundraisers circulate rapidly via Facebook sharing.

Method and sources

• Figures are best-available modeled estimates for Swisher County, applying Pew Research Center 2024 rural social-media adoption rates to the county’s population profile (U.S. Census Bureau 2020 decennial and recent ACS patterns). Exact platform user counts are not directly measured at the county level, but the ranges above align with rural Texas usage norms.