Tyler County

Tyler County, Texas — Key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau; primarily 2020 Census and 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Population size

• Total population: 19,798 (2020 Census)
• 2023 estimate: ~20,200 (Census Bureau Vintage estimates)

Age

• Median age: ~45 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~22%

Gender

• Male: ~50–51%
• Female: ~49–50%

Racial/ethnic composition (Hispanic is an ethnicity; shares sum to ~100%)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~77%
• Black or African American: ~14%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~7%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5%
• Asian: ~0.3%
• Other: <0.5%

Household data

• Households: ~7,600
• Average household size: ~2.5 persons
• Family households: ~67% of households
• Married-couple households: ~50–53% of households
• Nonfamily households: ~33%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~80–82%

Insights

• Small, rural county with slow growth since 2020.
• Older age profile than the Texas average (higher 65+ share).
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a notable Black population and a smaller Hispanic share.
• High owner-occupancy and predominantly family households, typical of rural East Texas.

Tyler County, TX snapshot

• Population and density: 21,764 residents (2020 Census) across 925 sq mi ≈ 23.5 people/sq mi.
• Estimated email users: 16,000–17,000 residents (≈88–92% of adults), based on U.S. adult email adoption (~90%+) and the county’s older-skewing age mix (Pew Research, Census/ACS).
• Age distribution of email users (est. share of users):
  • 18–29: ~15%
  • 30–49: ~30%
  • 50–64: ~27%
  • 65+: 28% High adoption among working-age adults (95%) and strong but slightly lower adoption among 65+ (~85–90%).
• Gender split of users: ≈51% female, 49% male, mirroring county demographics.
• Digital access and trends (ACS 2018–2022; rural TX patterns):
  • Households with broadband subscription: ~78–82%.
  • No home internet: ~18–22%.
  • Cellular-only internet: ~6–8%.
  • Computer/smartphone access is widespread, enabling email even where fixed broadband lags.
• Connectivity facts:
  • Service concentration around Woodville; outlying forested areas (Big Thicket region) exhibit gaps, relying on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Low density and heavy tree cover increase last‑mile costs, slowing fiber buildout; state/federal programs (Texas BDO/BEAD) are targeting remaining unserved pockets.

Overall: Email usage is near-universal among adults; access constraints are driven more by rural infrastructure than by user willingness.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Tyler County, Texas (2024)

Population context

• Population baseline: ~19,800 residents (2020 Census). Rural, dispersed settlement pattern centered on Woodville and small communities.

User estimates (smartphone users, subscribers, reliance)

• Smartphone users: 13,000–15,000 residents (roughly 80–85% of adults), lower than the Texas average (~90% of adults). Estimate reflects the county’s older age profile and lower incomes relative to state averages.
• Mobile subscriptions (SIMs) in service: ~22,000–26,000 lines (roughly 110–130 lines per 100 residents), indicating multi-line households and work phones but below the state’s urban counties where penetration often exceeds 140 per 100 residents.
• Smartphone-only internet users (no fixed home broadband): 18–25% of households, materially higher than the Texas average (generally low-to-mid teens), driven by limited wired options outside town centers and budget constraints.
• 5G handset penetration: materially lower than statewide due to older population and slower device replacement; 4G/LTE remains the primary network experience for many users.

Demographic factors shaping usage (differences vs Texas)

• Age: Tyler County skews older (roughly 1 in 4 residents are 65+ versus about 1 in 8 statewide). This reduces smartphone adoption and 5G device uptake and increases basic phone and LTE-only device use.
• Income: Median household income trails the Texas median by a wide margin, contributing to higher prepaid plan use, more single-line plans, and longer upgrade cycles.
• Education: Lower share of bachelor’s degrees than Texas overall; combined with income, this correlates with greater reliance on smartphones for primary internet access and less take-up of premium unlimited plans.
• Race/ethnicity: A higher share of non-Hispanic White residents and a significant Black population, with a smaller Hispanic share than the state overall; combined with rural residence patterns, this translates into more variable coverage and plan types across communities than in urban Texas metros.

Digital infrastructure points (coverage, capacity, backhaul)

• Network footprint:
  • 4G/LTE: Broad multi-carrier coverage along US‑69, US‑190, and TX‑287 corridors and in/around Woodville; pockets of weak or no signal persist in forested areas and sparsely populated roads.
  • 5G: Low‑band 5G from the national carriers blankets main corridors and towns; mid‑band 5G (C‑band/2.5 GHz) is spotty and largely limited to higher-traffic areas; mmWave is not present. Statewide, mid‑band 5G is far more common in metros.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Typical user speeds: LTE ~5–50 Mbps; low‑band 5G ~20–100 Mbps; mid‑band 5G >100 Mbps where available. County users encounter LTE/low‑band 5G more often than Texans in metro areas who routinely see mid‑band 5G.
  • Congestion: Noticeable slowdowns at school dismissal, events, and along commuter corridors; backhaul constraints on rural sectors contribute to peak‑hour variability more than in urban Texas.
• Tower density and siting:
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than metro Texas; coverage prioritized over capacity. Forest canopy and the patchwork of public lands increase shadowing and dead‑zone risk off the main highways.
  • Limited small‑cell deployment compared to cities; carrier investment focuses on maintaining LTE quality and incremental 5G rather than dense capacity builds.
• Fixed alternatives:
  • Fiber-to-the-home is limited to small pockets; DSL and legacy copper remain in parts of the county; cable broadband, where present, is mostly confined to town centers. Fixed‑wireless ISPs serve some rural areas, but coverage and consistency vary. The relative scarcity of high‑quality fixed options helps explain the higher smartphone‑only and mobile‑hotspot reliance versus the statewide picture.
• Resilience and emergency use:
  • Power outages and storms can impair service more severely than in urban Texas because of fewer redundant backhaul routes and longer restoration times; users often maintain multiple SIMs or carriers for redundancy.

Usage patterns that differ from state-level trends

• Lower overall smartphone and 5G‑device penetration, with a higher share of LTE‑only users.
• Higher prepaid and single‑line plan usage; slower device upgrade cycles.
• Greater reliance on smartphones and mobile hotspots as the primary home internet connection.
• More variability in signal quality away from highways and towns; state metros see denser, more consistent mid‑band 5G.
• Peak‑hour congestion is more sensitive to school and event schedules due to fewer sectors and less small‑cell offload capacity.

Actionable implications

• Carriers that expand mid‑band 5G on existing towers and add rural backhaul capacity will deliver outsized user experience gains compared with further low‑band overlays.
• Public and cooperative fiber builds to unserved roads will directly reduce smartphone‑only reliance and improve digital equity faster than incremental LTE upgrades.
• For residents, multi‑carrier redundancy (dual‑SIM or family plans spanning carriers) materially improves reliability given localized dead zones.

Social media usage in Tyler County, Texas (point-estimate model, 2025) Method: County-level social media data isn’t directly published. The figures below are modeled from Tyler County’s ACS demographic profile and 2024–2025 platform-usage rates from Pew Research Center, adjusted for rural/older age mix typical of Deep East Texas. Treat as best-available point estimates.

Overall usage

• Adults (18+) using at least one social platform: 78%
• Daily users (any platform): 64% of adults
• Primary device: smartphone-first (>85% of users)

Age-group usage (share of each age group that uses social media)

• 18–29: 94%
• 30–49: 86%
• 50–64: 72%
• 65+: 55%

Gender breakdown (share of social media users)

• Female: 52%
• Male: 48%

Most-used platforms among adults (share of all adults)

• YouTube: 79%
• Facebook: 73%
• Instagram: 31%
• TikTok: 26%
• Pinterest: 27%
• Snapchat: 18%
• X (Twitter): 14%
• Reddit: 11%
• Nextdoor: 9%

Behavioral trends and insights

• Facebook is the community backbone: heavy use of local groups (yard sales, school, church, volunteer fire departments), Marketplace, event updates, and severe weather alerts. Page and group posts from recognizable local entities outperform national pages.
• YouTube is the utility channel: strong consumption of how‑to, homesteading, small‑engine repair, hunting/fishing, land and timber topics, and local church services; skews male 25–64.
• Short‑form video is growing but pragmatic: Reels/Shorts used for local businesses (boutiques, trades, eateries), high school sports highlights, and event promos; TikTok and Instagram adoption centered under 40, but the same clips mirrored to Facebook drive most reach.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger and SMS dominate; WhatsApp usage is niche; Snapchat is primarily 18–29 for direct messaging.
• Content that wins: local news and safety updates, school and youth sports, church/community events, practical how‑to content, deals/discounts, and giveaways. Hyperlocal relevance consistently beats polished but generic creative.
• Timing: engagement concentrates evenings (7–10 p.m.) and weekends; a secondary bump around weekday lunch. Storm days and school-event nights create spikes.
• Advertising performance norms: boosted Facebook posts with tight geofencing (10–20 miles around Woodville and nearby communities) and interest layering (outdoors, hunting/fishing, home repair) outperform broad targeting. Short native video (15–30s) outperforms static for reach; single-image posts with clear offers still convert well for local retail.
• Platform skews: women 30–64 over-index on Facebook/Pinterest; men 25–54 over-index on YouTube/Reddit. Instagram is strongest among 18–34; TikTok strongest under 30 but growing among 30–44 via cross-posted Reels.

Sources: Pew Research Center (Social Media Use, 2024–2025 updates); NTIA Internet Use Survey (rural vs. urban differentials); U.S. Census Bureau ACS (county demographics/internet access). Estimates are adjusted to Tyler County’s rural age profile to provide county-relevant percentages.