Alpena County

Here are key demographics for Alpena County, Michigan (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; margins of error omitted):

• Population: ~28,600
• Age:
  • Median age: ~49 years
  • Under 18: ~18.7%
  • 18–64: ~56.0%
  • 65 and over: ~25.3%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50.6%
  • Male: ~49.4%
• Race and ethnicity:
  • White alone: ~95–96%
  • Black or African American alone: ~0.5%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1.1–1.3%
  • Asian alone: ~0.4%
  • Two or more races: ~2%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~1.7–2.0%
  • White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~94–95%
• Households and housing:
  • Total households: ~13,100
  • Average household size: ~2.16
  • Family households: ~60% of households
  • One-person households: ~35%
  • 65+ living alone: ~16%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year (tables DP05, S0101, DP02, DP04).

Alpena County, MI — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Population: 28.9k; adults ~23–24k. Applying typical U.S. adult email adoption (90–95%), estimated email users ≈ 21–22k adults.
• Age mix of users: County skews older (≈25% 65+). Email adoption is near-universal under 65 and ~85–90% for 65+. Roughly:
  • 65+: ~25–30% of users
  • 50–64: ~25–30%
  • Under 50: ~40–50%
• Gender: Adult population ~51% women, 49% men; email use rates are similar by gender, so users split roughly evenly.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription is roughly three-quarters to four-fifths of households (ACS S2801–like levels for rural MI).
  • Smartphone ownership is high; a meaningful minority (≈10–15%) are smartphone‑only for internet, boosting mobile email reliance.
  • Higher-speed fixed options (cable/fiber) cluster in/around the City of Alpena and along the US‑23/M‑32 corridor; outlying townships rely more on DSL and fixed wireless.
• Density/connectivity context: Land area ~572 sq mi; ~50 residents/sq mi. Low density and dispersed housing raise last‑mile costs; urban/lakefront areas see better speeds and reliability than interior rural zones.

Notes: Figures are derived by applying national email-use rates to local population and ACS-style internet subscription patterns; treat as directional.

Alpena County, MI mobile phone usage: summary with county-specific differences from Michigan overall

Quick snapshot

• Population base: about 29,000 residents, with an older age profile and lower median household income than the Michigan average.
• Coverage: Strongest around the City of Alpena, US‑23 and M‑32 corridors; patchier service in interior rural/forested townships.
• Adoption: High overall cellphone ownership, but a measurable gap in smartphone and 5G uptake vs state averages.
• Reliance: Higher reliance on mobile data as a primary connection due to limited fixed broadband options outside town.

User estimates (orders of magnitude; rounded)

• Adult cellphone ownership: roughly 92–95% of adults. With ~22–23k adults, that’s about 20–22k adult cellphone users.
• Adult smartphone ownership: approximately 80–85% of adults (lower than MI overall), or ~18–20k adult smartphone users.
• Teens (13–17) with smartphones: high (≈90%+); adds roughly 2–3k more smartphone users countywide.
• Mobile-only internet households: estimated 15–20% (meaningfully higher than Michigan’s ~11–12%), reflecting rural gaps in wired broadband.
• 5G-capable device penetration: below the state average; a noticeable share of residents still on LTE-only or older handsets, especially among seniors and lower-income users.

Demographic drivers of usage

• Older age structure: A larger 65+ share than the state dampens smartphone and app-centric usage; voice/SMS remains more common among older residents.
• Income and affordability: Lower median income raises price sensitivity. Prepaid and MVNO plans have a higher share than statewide, and device upgrade cycles run longer.
• Work patterns: Fewer dense employment centers and more outdoor/shift work correlate with practical, utility-focused phone use and less frequent high-end device turnover.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Radio access:
  • LTE is broadly available from major carriers in and around Alpena; coverage thins in interior townships with heavy tree cover and sparse population.
  • 5G low-band covers primary corridors; mid-band 5G (C-band/n41) is concentrated in and near Alpena and along major roads. mmWave is unlikely outside limited downtown spots, if at all.
• Backhaul/middle-mile: Regional fiber backbones traverse Northeast Michigan, with interconnect options near Alpena, but last-mile reach into rural areas is limited.
• Fixed broadband context (drives mobile reliance):
  • City of Alpena: cable and some fiber present; multiple ISPs; 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) available in selected blocks.
  • Rural townships: a mix of legacy DSL, fixed wireless ISPs (often CBRS-based), and expanding but still spotty fiber; FWA fills gaps where signal quality allows.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) presence for emergency services; carriers use generator-backed macro sites on key towers, but winter storms and ice can still cause localized outages.
• Typical user experience (ranges; site- and time-dependent):
  • In town on mid-band 5G: roughly 150–400 Mbps down; good for FWA and heavy app use.
  • Along highways on LTE/low-band 5G: roughly 10–80 Mbps down, variable indoors.
  • Interior rural pockets: occasional drops to sub‑10 Mbps or brief dead zones, especially in low-lying or heavily forested areas.

How Alpena County differs from Michigan overall

• Adoption mix: Slightly lower smartphone and 5G device penetration; higher basic-phone and LTE-only use.
• Plan types: Higher share of prepaid/MVNO lines; more conservative device replacement cycles.
• Mobile-only dependence: Noticeably higher share of households using smartphones or FWA as their primary home internet, due to fewer wired options outside the city.
• Network footprint: 5G mid-band is less ubiquitous; performance gains are concentrated in and near Alpena rather than countywide.
• Usage patterns: Less streaming-intensive and more voice/SMS-reliant among older residents; seasonal tourism brings temporary demand spikes that can strain specific sectors.
• Digital divide: Age, income, and geography combine to produce a wider skills-and-access gap than statewide, increasing demand for library/school hotspot lending and digital literacy programs.

Trends to watch (next 12–36 months)

• Gradual expansion of mid-band 5G sites along main corridors; improving outdoor coverage and in-home FWA viability.
• Fiber buildouts funded by state/federal programs targeting unserved/underserved pockets; where fiber arrives, mobile-only reliance should fall.
• Continued uptick in FWA subscriptions in census blocks lacking cable/fiber, especially where signal quality supports consistent mid-band performance.
• Slow but steady rise in 5G handset share as prepaid channels add affordable models and older devices age out.

Notes on estimates

• Population and age structure are based on recent Census/ACS tendencies; adoption rates reflect rural/older-county adjustments to national/state smartphone figures (e.g., Pew) and known rural Michigan patterns. Where precise county-level data are unavailable, ranges are provided and should be validated against local surveys, carrier drive tests, and the latest FCC coverage and subscription datasets.

Alpena County, MI social media snapshot (estimates, 2025)

Quick context

• Residents: ~28.8k (ACS). Older-than-average age profile; broadband access typical of rural MI.
• Estimated social media users (13+): ~18–19k, or 64–68% of all residents (roughly 72–75% of the 13+ population).

Users by age (share of local user base)

• 13–17: ~7–8%
• 18–29: ~16%
• 30–49: ~24%
• 50–64: ~30% (largest block)
• 65+: ~23%

Gender breakdown (all users)

• Women: ~53–55%
• Men: ~45–47%
• Skews by platform: Pinterest, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat lean female; YouTube, Reddit, X/Twitter lean male; TikTok ~balanced to slightly female; LinkedIn slightly male.

Most-used platforms in Alpena County (approx. reach among 13+ residents)

• YouTube: 75–80% of 13+ (about 60–65% of all residents)
• Facebook: 65–70% of 13+ (about 55–60% of all residents); Facebook Groups are central for local info
• Instagram: 33–36% of 13+ (about 28–32% of all residents)
• Pinterest: 31–33% of 13+ (about 26–29% of all residents); majority women
• TikTok: 26–28% of 13+ (about 22–24% of all residents); skew younger
• Snapchat: 21–23% of 13+ (about 18–20% of all residents); teens/20s
• LinkedIn: 18–20% of 13+ (about 15–17% of all residents); limited in rural markets
• X/Twitter: 16–18% of 13+ (about 13–15% of all residents)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first usage: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups for local news, school closings, fundraisers, buy/sell/trade, weather, road and outage updates; Messenger is a common contact channel.
• Content that performs: Local faces and businesses, youth sports and school achievements, outdoors (fishing/hunting/boating), DIY/home projects, event calendars, timely weather/lake conditions, giveaways, and short vertical video. YouTube remains strong for how‑to and product research.
• Seasonality: Summer spikes (tourism, lake activity, festivals), fall hunting content, back‑to‑school, and storm events. Weekend and evening engagement lift is common.
• Best posting windows (local tendency): Early morning commute (6–8 am), lunch (11:30 am–1 pm), evening (7–9 pm). Older audiences engage more with feed posts than Stories; younger users engage heavily with Reels/TikTok.
• Ads ROI: Facebook/Instagram dominate for reach and event promotion within 15–30 miles; YouTube pre‑roll helps awareness; TikTok works for under‑35s with short-form video; Pinterest effective for DIY, recipes, and home improvement; LinkedIn yields niche results (hiring/professionals).
• Trust patterns: People favor admin‑moderated local groups; rapid sharing of unverified info occurs during emergencies—timely, clear official updates perform well.

Notes on method

• Figures are estimates using ACS population structure and Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption rates, adjusted for Alpena’s older, more rural profile. For precise, current counts, validate with platform ad tools (geo‑targeting Alpena County) and local audience analytics.