Pulaski County

Pulaski County, Kentucky — key demographics

Population size

• 65,034 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~43 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18 to 64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Race and ethnicity

• White (non-Hispanic): ~94%
• Black or African American: ~2%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Asian: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%

Households and housing

• Households: ~26,000–27,000
• Average household size: ~2.4 persons
• Family households: ~70% of households
• Living alone: ~27% of households; about half of these are age 65+
• Homeownership rate: ~73–76% owner-occupied; ~24–27% renter-occupied

Insights

• Older age profile than the U.S. average, with about one in five residents 65+
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population with small but growing multiracial and Hispanic communities
• Household structure is family-oriented with high homeownership

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

Pulaski County, KY email usage snapshot

• Population/density: 65,034 residents (2020 Census) across 658 sq mi (99 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ~51,000 residents 13+ (≈78% of total population), based on adult adoption norms.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users; approx. counts):
  • 13–17: 7% (~3.6k)
  • 18–29: 18% (~9.2k)
  • 30–49: 34% (~17.3k)
  • 50–64: 25% (~12.8k)
  • 65+: 16% (~8.2k)
• Gender split among users: 51% female (26k), 49% male (25k), mirroring the county’s sex ratio.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: ~78% (ACS 5‑year).
  • Households with a computer (desktop/laptop/tablet/smartphone): ~89% (ACS 5‑year).
  • Smartphone‑only internet households: ~13% (growing, reflecting mobile‑centric access).
  • Email remains the most universal online activity; adoption is near‑ubiquitous among working‑age adults and rising among seniors.
• Connectivity context: Access is densest around Somerset/US‑27 and KY‑80 corridors; rural areas around Lake Cumberland show lower fixed‑line adoption, with mobile service filling gaps. Upgrades since 2020 (DOCSIS and fixed wireless/5G) have improved speeds and reliability, supporting steady growth in email engagement across age groups.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Pulaski County, Kentucky

Baseline context

• Population and households: ~65,000 residents and ~26,000 households (Census 2020; 2023 estimates are similar). Older, more rural, and lower-income than the Kentucky average, which shapes mobile adoption and reliance patterns.

User estimates and how they differ from the state

• Adult smartphone users: 40,000–42,000 residents, or roughly 80–83% of adults. This is several percentage points below Kentucky’s overall adult smartphone adoption, reflecting the county’s older age profile and higher rural share (benchmarked to Pew Research 2023 rural adoption and ACS age mix).
• Households with a smartphone device: About 88–92% of households, slightly below Kentucky’s statewide rate (ACS S2801 pattern for rural counties).
• Households with any home broadband subscription: About 74–78% in Pulaski vs roughly low-80s statewide (ACS S2802 patterns), indicating a wider broadband gap locally.
• Mobile-only home internet (cellular data plan with no other subscription): About 19–22% of Pulaski households vs roughly 13–17% statewide. This gap is one of the clearest county-level differences and indicates heavier reliance on mobile networks for primary internet access.
• No internet at home: Approximately 16–18% in Pulaski vs about 12–14% statewide, consistent with higher mobile dependence and affordability constraints.

Demographic breakdown shaping usage

• Age: Median age in Pulaski is a few years higher than Kentucky’s; adults 65+ are a larger share of the population. Senior smartphone adoption locally is lower (about low-60s percent) than the state average for seniors (high-60s), which pulls down overall adoption.
• Income: A higher share of households under $35,000 annual income than the state average correlates with greater mobile-only internet use and more price-sensitive plan selection.
• Education: Lower bachelor’s attainment than the Kentucky average aligns with slightly lower smartphone adoption and lower home broadband take-up, increasing dependence on mobile service for connectivity.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is predominantly White non-Hispanic with smaller Black and Hispanic communities than the state average; differences in smartphone adoption by race are modest relative to the stronger effects of age, rurality, and income locally.

Digital infrastructure and coverage specifics

• Carrier presence: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile all serve the market. Verizon’s network strength benefited from its acquisition of Bluegrass Cellular (2021), an incumbent in south‑central Kentucky; AT&T has broad LTE/5G coverage and FirstNet support; T-Mobile’s 5G expansion has improved capacity along primary corridors.
• 5G footprint: 5G is widely available outdoors in and around Somerset and along US‑27 and KY‑80. Coverage thins in low-density and lake/valley terrain; many outlying communities still rely heavily on LTE for reliability. Compared with Kentucky’s urban counties, mid‑band 5G capacity is less continuous, which matters for home mobile-only users and hotspot use.
• Expected performance: In-town 5G/LTE typically supports broadband-class speeds sufficient for video and telework; fringes can drop to sub‑25 Mbps and experience signal variability, especially around Lake Cumberland’s shoreline and in hollows. This performance gradient is more pronounced than in Kentucky’s metro counties.
• Backhaul and fiber context: Wireline competition is improving in Somerset (e.g., Spectrum) with Kinetic by Windstream and other builds in parts of the county, but fiber-to-the-home availability remains spottier than in the state’s metro/suburban areas. Where fiber is absent, households are more likely to lean on mobile data plans.
• Public safety and resilience: AT&T’s FirstNet presence and a network of macro towers cover major population centers and corridors; however, terrain constraints and seasonal tourism surges (Lake Cumberland) can stress capacity more than in typical Kentucky counties, leading to event-time slowdowns.

What stands out vs the Kentucky average

• Higher reliance on mobile networks for primary home internet (mobile-only households roughly 4–7 percentage points higher than the state).
• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption, driven by an older age mix and rural settlement patterns.
• A larger share of households without any home internet, reinforcing the role of mobile as a connectivity backstop.
• More uneven 5G capacity continuity: strong around Somerset and main routes, but with quicker falloff than in urban counties, making LTE the de facto workhorse in parts of the county.

Sources and methodology

• Demographics and household counts: U.S. Census Bureau (Decennial Census 2020; 2023 population estimates).
• Device ownership and subscription patterns: ACS Computer and Internet Use tables (S2801/S2802, 2019–2023), scaled to county level; Pew Research Center 2023 for rural vs overall smartphone adoption benchmarks.
• Coverage and infrastructure: FCC Broadband Data Collection (2023–2024 filings) and operator network announcements in south‑central Kentucky, including Verizon’s acquisition of Bluegrass Cellular.

Bottom line Pulaski County’s mobile landscape is defined by slightly lower smartphone adoption but significantly higher dependence on mobile networks for home internet than Kentucky overall. Network capacity and 5G availability are strong in Somerset and along primary corridors, while rural terrain and sparser fiber builds sustain a durable mobile-only segment that is larger than the state average.

Social media usage in Pulaski County, KY (2025)

Snapshot

• Population: ~65,000; adults (18+): ~51,000
• Adults using at least one social platform: ~80% (≈41,000)
• Daily users: ~70% of users (≈29,000)

Most-used platforms among adult residents (modeled local estimates)

• YouTube: 77%
• Facebook: 66%
• Instagram: 36%
• Pinterest: 29%
• TikTok: 27%
• Snapchat: 22%
• X (Twitter): 16%
• LinkedIn: 14%
• Reddit: 13%

Age breakdown (share of adults using social media; leading platforms within each cohort)

• 18–29: 95%; top platforms: YouTube 90%, Instagram 75%, Snapchat 65%, TikTok 63%, Facebook 50%
• 30–49: 88%; top platforms: Facebook 72%, YouTube 82%, Instagram 50%, TikTok 35%, Pinterest 33%
• 50–64: 78%; top platforms: Facebook 70%, YouTube 72%, Pinterest 30%, Instagram 27%, TikTok 18%
• 65+: 58%; top platforms: Facebook 55%, YouTube 50%, Pinterest 25%, Instagram 15%, TikTok 10%

Gender breakdown of local social media users

• Overall users: ~52% women, ~48% men
• Platform skews:
  • More women: Pinterest (70% women), TikTok (58% women), Instagram (56% women), Snapchat (55% women), Facebook (~54% women)
  • More men: YouTube (55% men), X/Twitter (60% men), Reddit (65% men), LinkedIn (55% men)

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community backbone: heavy use of Groups for school updates, church and civic events, yard sales, youth sports, and local politics; shares/comments drive most reach
• Short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) is growing fast for local businesses, events, and creators; video outperforms static posts for reach and actions
• Messaging happens in Facebook Messenger and Snapchat; many small businesses handle inquiries and appointments via DMs
• Content interests center on local news/weather, Lake Cumberland and outdoor recreation, bargains, restaurant openings, and school activities; engagement spikes around community events and severe weather
• Peak usage: evenings (7–10 pm) and weekend afternoons; mobile-first consumption; cross-posting across Facebook and Instagram is standard for small businesses
• LinkedIn remains niche (healthcare, education, public sector hiring); X is used mainly by media, government, emergency services, and sports accounts for real-time updates

Method note

• Figures are 2025 modeled estimates for Pulaski County derived from 2023 ACS demographics and 2024 Pew Research Center platform adoption rates, adjusted for the county’s older/rural profile; percentages are rounded.