Linn County

Linn County, Kansas — Key Demographics (U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates)

Population

• Total population: ~9,640
• Households: ~3,940
• Persons per household: ~2.42

Age

• Median age: ~46 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Sex

• Female: ~49%
• Male: ~51%

Race and ethnicity

• White (alone or in combination): ~94–95%
• Black/African American (alone or in combination): ~0.5–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (alone or in combination): ~0.7–1%
• Asian (alone or in combination): ~0.2–0.4%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (alone or in combination): ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic/Latino (of any race): ~3–4%

Household characteristics

• Family households: ~64%
• Married-couple households: ~52% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~24–26%
• Owner-occupied housing: ~83%
• Renter-occupied housing: ~17%

Insights

• Small, aging population with a median age in the mid-40s and roughly one-quarter aged 65+
• Predominantly White population with a small but present multiracial and Hispanic share
• High owner-occupancy and modest household size indicative of a largely rural, family-oriented housing market

Linn County, Kansas (pop. ≈9,500; area ≈606 sq mi) has a low population density of about 16 residents per square mile.

Estimated email users: ≈7,200 residents age 15+ use email regularly. This estimate applies national age-specific email adoption to the county’s rural age mix.

Age distribution of email users (approx.):

• 15–24: 1,000 (14%)
• 25–44: 2,200 (31%)
• 45–64: 2,400 (33%)
• 65+: 1,600 (22%)

Gender split: roughly even among email users (≈50% female, 50% male), mirroring the overall population.

Digital access and trends:

• About three-quarters of households maintain a home broadband subscription, and roughly nine in ten have a computer/device capable of email (consistent with recent ACS rural-county benchmarks).
• Adoption is highest in and around population centers and along main corridors, with sparser areas showing lower fixed-line uptake and greater reliance on mobile data.
• Overall connectivity has been improving with ongoing fiber builds and expanded 5G coverage, supporting stable-to-rising email use; however, affordability and last-mile gaps keep a minority of households offline.

Insight: Email reaches the large majority of adults countywide, with strongest penetration under age 65; supplement with SMS/print for older and unserved households.

Mobile phone usage in Linn County, Kansas — 2025 snapshot

Headline takeaways (how Linn County differs from Kansas overall)

• Smartphone access is meaningfully lower than the state average, and mobile-only internet reliance is higher, reflecting the county’s older age profile, lower median income, and more rural settlement pattern.
• 5G is present along the US‑69 corridor and in/around towns, but large areas remain LTE‑only; mid-band 5G (capacity) is notably sparser than in metro Kansas, which shapes speeds and in-building performance.
• Households without any internet service are more common than statewide, increasing dependence on cellular connectivity for day‑to‑day access.

User and household estimates

• Households with a smartphone: ≈86% in Linn County vs ≈91% statewide (ACS 2019–2023 5‑year, table S2801). With ≈4,000 households in the county, that equates to about 3,400–3,500 households with at least one smartphone.
• Households with a cellular data plan (for a smartphone/tablet/other mobile device): ≈72% in Linn County vs ≈81% statewide (ACS S2801). This gap mirrors differences in income and coverage quality.
• Households with no internet subscription of any kind: ≈14% in Linn County vs ≈9% statewide (ACS S2801). These households typically rely on voice/text or ad‑hoc Wi‑Fi rather than sustained mobile data.
• Individual adoption (modeled from ACS household device metrics and the county’s age structure):
  • Any mobile phone: roughly 90–94% of adults (near-statewide levels, as basic cell ownership is nearly universal).
  • Smartphones: roughly 75–82% of all residents (lower than Kansas as a whole, driven by lower uptake among adults 65+).

Demographic drivers of usage (how Linn differs and why it matters)

• Older population: Residents 65+ comprise a larger share in Linn County (23%) than Kansas (16%). Seniors adopt smartphones and app-based services at lower rates, contributing to lower smartphone penetration and more voice/SMS‑centric use.
• Income: Median household income is materially below the Kansas median, which correlates with:
  • Greater use of prepaid plans and single‑line subscriptions.
  • More careful data budgeting and slower plan upgrades (e.g., later migration to 5G devices/plans).
• Household composition and density: A higher share of rural, single‑household dwellings increases the cost to serve and reduces indoor signal quality relative to urban Kansas, shaping both device choices and how people connect (e.g., external antennas, LTE/5G home internet gateways).

Digital infrastructure and coverage patterns

• 5G availability:
  • T‑Mobile’s low‑band 5G and some 2.5 GHz mid‑band are present along US‑69 (La Cygne–Mound City–Pleasanton) and town centers; coverage thins quickly in outlying areas.
  • AT&T 5G (including FirstNet) and Verizon 5G provide corridor/town coverage; mid‑band capacity (C‑band/DoD) is far less ubiquitous than in metro counties (e.g., Johnson/Sedgwick), so many areas operate on LTE or low‑band 5G with LTE‑like speeds.
• LTE remains the default performance layer across much of the county, with signal variability and dead zones in low‑lying or wooded areas (e.g., near the Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area and some western townships).
• Capacity and congestion: Evening traffic spikes are noticeable where households use LTE/5G fixed‑wireless for home internet; overall congestion is lower than metro corridors but capacity can tighten on sector‑limited sites serving wide rural areas.
• Backhaul: Microwave backhaul still supports a meaningful share of rural sites; fiber‑fed macro sites cluster along US‑69 and near substations/municipal hubs, improving those cells’ throughput versus deeper rural sites.
• Carrier and service landscape:
  • National MNOs: AT&T (incl. FirstNet), T‑Mobile, and Verizon operate macro coverage; roaming to adjacent Missouri sites is common near the state line.
  • Fixed‑wireless ISPs (for home broadband over licensed/unlicensed spectrum): Mercury Broadband and KwiKom are active in east‑central Kansas and are typical options in and around Linn County; LTE/5G home internet offers from T‑Mobile and Verizon are increasingly available in corridor/town areas.
  • Wireline competition is limited outside towns; fiber-to-the-home remains spotty compared with statewide metro buildouts, which pushes more households toward cellular or WISP solutions.

Usage patterns that stand out versus Kansas overall

• Higher mobile-only reliance: A larger slice of households use mobile data as their primary home connection (either phone hotspots or LTE/5G gateways), compared with metro Kansas where cable/fiber is more available.
• Slower 5G device turnover: Aged device mix (more LTE/low‑band 5G handsets) sustains lower median speeds versus state averages driven by mid‑band 5G in metros.
• Public-service dependence: School and library hotspot programs, as well as FirstNet coverage for responders along US‑69, play a comparatively bigger role than in well‑served urban counties.

Key quantitative contrasts (county vs state)

• Households with a smartphone: ~86% vs ~91% (−5 pp)
• Households with a cellular data plan: ~72% vs ~81% (−9 pp)
• Households with no internet: ~14% vs ~9% (+5 pp)

Notes on sources and estimation

• Household smartphone, cellular subscription, and no‑internet figures reflect U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019–2023 5‑year (table S2801). County totals are small, so year‑to‑year margins of error exist, but the direction and gap vs statewide are consistent.
• Infrastructure and coverage characterization synthesizes FCC mobile broadband maps (2023–2024 filings), public carrier 5G maps as of 2024, and observed rural deployment patterns in eastern Kansas.

Linn County, KS social media snapshot (2025, best-available local estimates)

• Population baseline: ≈9,600 residents; ≈7,600 adults (18+)
• Social media users (any platform, at least monthly): ≈5,500 adults (about 72% of adults; modeled from rural U.S. usage patterns)

Age-group usage (share of adults in each cohort who use social media)

• 18–29: 90–95%
• 30–49: 80–88%
• 50–64: 65–75%
• 65+: 45–55%

Gender breakdown of user base

• Female: ≈54%
• Male: ≈46% Notes: Women skew more to Facebook and Pinterest; men skew more to YouTube and Reddit/X.

Most‑used platforms among adults (share of adults using each at least monthly; estimates)

• YouTube: 72–78%
• Facebook: 60–68%
• Instagram: 28–35%
• Pinterest: 28–34% (heavy female skew)
• TikTok: 22–28% (younger skew)
• Snapchat: 18–25% (strongest among 18–29)
• WhatsApp: 10–14%
• X (Twitter): 10–13%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 2–4%

Behavioral trends observed in comparable rural Kansas communities and evident locally

• Facebook as the community hub: School updates, county/EMS/weather alerts, church and youth sports, buy/sell/marketplace, and event promotion primarily run through Groups; Messenger is the default for one‑to‑one coordination.
• Video light, photo/text heavy: Patchy broadband outside towns suppresses long live streams; short clips and photo posts outperform long video. YouTube is used for how‑to, ag, outdoor, and church services.
• Youth split: Teens/young adults concentrate daily time on Snapchat for messaging and on Instagram/TikTok/Reels for short‑form video; they discover local events there but still rely on Facebook Groups for details when prompted by parents/coaches.
• Commerce and outreach: Local businesses and civic orgs rely on boosted Facebook posts targeted within ~25–50 miles; Marketplace drives secondhand goods. Limited but growing experimentation with TikTok/Reels ads for events and seasonal promotions.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 p.m.) and weekends; severe weather and school‑related posts spike interaction and shares.
• Trust and moderation: Residents favor posts from known local figures, schools, emergency management, and church pages; rumor control often happens via active group admins. Misinformation risk rises during storms and elections.
• Regional spillover: Audiences overlap with neighboring counties (Miami, Bourbon, Johnson), so cross‑posting to adjacent community groups expands reach efficiently.

Method note: County‑level platform censuses are not published; figures above are 2025 modeled estimates for Linn County derived from ACS demographics and Pew/industry data for rural U.S./Midwest usage patterns, scaled to the county’s size and age mix.