Kalkaska County

Kalkaska County, Michigan — key demographics

Population

• Total population: 17,939 (2020 Decennial Census)
• ACS 2019–2023 estimate: ≈18,1K

Age

• Median age: ~44–45 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Age distribution: ~22% under 18; ~58% 18–64; ~20% 65+ (ACS 2019–2023)

Sex

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50% (ACS 2019–2023)

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~94–95%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.4–0.6%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1–1.5%
• Asian alone: ~0.3%
• Two or more races: ~2.5–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~92–93% (2020 Census; ACS 2019–2023)

Households

• Households: ~7,100–7,300
• Average household size: ~2.45–2.50 persons
• Family households: ~65–67% of households
• Average family size: ~3.0 persons (ACS 2019–2023)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5-year estimates. Figures rounded; ACS values are estimates with sampling error.

Kalkaska County, MI population: 17,939 (2020), about 31 residents per square mile across roughly 571 sq mi; ~7,300 households.

Estimated email users: ~11,000 adults. Method: ~14,000 adults (≈78% of population) × ~85% internet adoption × ~92% email adoption among internet users.

Age distribution of email users (approximate share and count):

• 18–29: 15% (~1,650)
• 30–49: 32% (~3,520)
• 50–64: 27% (~2,970)
• 65+: 26% (~2,860)

Gender split: near parity; women ~50–51% of adults, men ~49–50%, with no meaningful email-usage gap.

Digital access and trends:

• About 4 in 5 households maintain a broadband subscription (ACS S2801 pattern for rural MI), implying roughly 5,800–6,100 connected households locally.
• Around 9 in 10 households have a computer; roughly 1 in 10 lack home internet or rely primarily on smartphones.
• Connectivity is densest in and around the Village of Kalkaska and along main corridors; sparsely populated, forested townships experience the most last‑mile gaps.
• Overall access and speeds are improving due to ongoing rural broadband buildouts, but coverage and affordability remain uneven in low‑density areas.

Insight: Email is effectively universal among connected adults; the main limiter is access, not willingness to use email.

Mobile phone usage in Kalkaska County, Michigan — 2025 snapshot

Key takeaways

• Mobile adoption is high but trails Michigan’s statewide levels, reflecting the county’s older, more rural profile.
• Residents rely on cellular data for home connectivity more than the state average due to patchier wireline broadband and limited fiber in outlying areas.
• 5G is present but uneven: low‑band 5G covers most populated areas, while capacity 5G (mid‑band/C‑band) is concentrated along the US‑131/M‑72 corridors and in/near the Village of Kalkaska.

User estimates

• Total population baseline: roughly 18 thousand residents (2020 Census benchmark with modest growth through 2024–2025).
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 12.5–14 thousand (consistent with high rural adoption among adults, but a few points below statewide Michigan).
• Total unique mobile users (including teens with phones and second lines): roughly 15–16 thousand.
• Household smartphone penetration: a few percentage points below Michigan’s statewide rate (Michigan typically exceeds 90% of households with a smartphone; Kalkaska is likely high‑80s to ~90%).
• Households relying on a cellular data plan for home internet: meaningfully higher share than the state average, reflecting rural last‑mile constraints; hotspot and fixed‑wireless use is common outside population centers.

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns aligned to local profile)

• Age: Older than the state overall, with a larger 55+ and 65+ share. Senior smartphone adoption is lower than younger cohorts, pulling down overall adoption vs the state; however, seniors who do adopt are increasingly using larger-screen devices and simplified plans.
• Income and education: Median household income and BA+ attainment trail statewide averages. This correlates with:
  • Greater prepaid and value/MVNO plan usage.
  • Slower device upgrade cycles and higher prevalence of mid‑tier Android devices.
• Children and teens: Like elsewhere in Michigan, teen smartphone access is very high; family plans are common drivers of line counts in the county.
• Race/ethnicity: Predominantly White compared with Michigan overall; usage differences by race/ethnicity are less pronounced here than urban counties, with rural/age and income effects dominating.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Networks present: All three national carriers operate in the county. 4G LTE coverage is effectively ubiquitous along primary roads and in populated areas.
• 5G:
  • Low‑band 5G (e.g., 600/700/850 MHz) covers most populated areas and many rural stretches, providing broad reach but LTE‑like speeds.
  • Mid‑band 5G (e.g., 2.5 GHz, C‑band 3.7–3.98 GHz) is strongest in and around the Village of Kalkaska and along US‑131 and M‑72. Outside these corridors, users often fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G.
  • mmWave 5G is negligible.
• Performance: Median mobile speeds are below Michigan’s statewide medians, with greater variability by terrain (forested areas and around lakes) and distance from corridors. Latency is acceptable for most apps but can spike in fringe areas or during peak hours.
• Macro sites and backhaul: Dozens of macro towers are sited along highways (US‑131, M‑72, M‑66) and near settlements; smaller infill is limited. Fiber backhaul is present on main corridors and to anchor institutions, but many rural sectors depend on microwave or longer backhaul paths, affecting peak capacity.
• Redundancy and resiliency: Public‑safety network sites (Michigan’s MPSCS) and school/library fiber connections provide localized resiliency; commercial network redundancy improves near the village and highway junctions.

How Kalkaska differs from the Michigan statewide picture

• Adoption level: High, but modestly lower than the state average due to older age structure and rural income mix.
• Plan mix: Higher prevalence of prepaid/MVNO and value plans; lower incidence of premium unlimited tiers with hotspot add‑ons compared with metro counties.
• Home connectivity: Larger share of households rely on cellular data or fixed wireless for primary internet; wireline alternatives (cable/fiber) are less uniformly available than statewide, especially outside the village and lake communities.
• 5G availability: Low‑band 5G is widespread, but capacity 5G (mid‑band/C‑band) footprint is smaller than the state average; residents more frequently experience LTE fallback away from corridors.
• Network performance: Lower median download speeds and higher variability than the statewide benchmark, especially at cell edges and in wooded/low‑density areas.
• Device lifecycle: Longer replacement cycles and higher use of refurbished/mid‑range devices than in urban Michigan.
• Work/commute linkage: Commuters to Grand Traverse and other neighboring counties experience a step‑up in capacity as they approach metro areas, highlighting the corridor‑centric nature of local 5G upgrades.

Implications

• For carriers: Additional mid‑band 5G sectors and upgraded backhaul on non‑corridor sites would close the performance gap and reduce LTE fallback.
• For public sector and ISPs: Continued fiber builds and fixed‑wireless upgrades will reduce cellular‑only household dependence and improve equity for remote learners and seniors.
• For businesses and app developers: Design assuming LTE‑level performance and intermittent low‑band 5G; optimize for variable latency and data‑efficient updates.

Social media snapshot: Kalkaska County, Michigan (2025)

Method note: Figures are best-available estimates for Kalkaska County derived by applying 2020 Census population (17,939) and a typical rural-Michigan age mix to Pew Research Center 2024 platform-usage rates. Counts are rounded to the nearest hundred; percentages refer to share of county adults unless noted.

User stats

• Adult population (18+): ~14,000
• Adults using major platforms (estimated share of adults; approx. user counts in parentheses):
  • YouTube: 78% (10,900)
  • Facebook: 63% (8,800)
  • Instagram: 34% (4,800)
  • TikTok: 24% (3,400)
  • Snapchat: 22% (3,100)
  • Pinterest: 28% (3,900)
  • LinkedIn: 17% (2,400)
  • X (Twitter): 16% (2,200)
  • Reddit: 13% (1,800)

Age groups (usage tendencies in the county)

• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube (~90%+). Heavy Instagram/Snapchat (≈65–75%) and TikTok (≈55–65%). Facebook moderate (≈55–65%).
• 30–49: Broadly active on YouTube (≈85%+) and Facebook (≈70–75%). Instagram mid-tier (≈45–55%). TikTok/Snapchat selective (≈30–40%).
• 50–64: Facebook dominant (≈65–75%); YouTube strong (≈65–70%). Instagram/TikTok lower (≈20–30% and ≈15–25% respectively).
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube lead (≈50–60% each); most other platforms under 15%.

Gender breakdown (share among local social media users; platform skews)

• Overall users: women ≈54%, men ≈46%.
• Platform skews: Pinterest heavily female (≈70–75% women); Facebook slightly female (≈55/45). YouTube slightly male (≈52/48). Reddit and X skew male (≈60–65% men). Instagram slightly female (≈55/45). Snapchat near parity among younger users.

Most-used platforms (by adult reach)

1. YouTube (~78%)
2. Facebook (~63%)
3. Pinterest (~28%)
4. Instagram (~34%) — higher among under-50s
5. TikTok (~24%)
6. Snapchat (~22%)
7. LinkedIn (~17%)
8. X/Twitter (~16%)

Behavioral trends observed in rural Michigan counties of similar size and applicable locally

• Facebook is the community backbone: high engagement in local news, school and township updates, events, and buy/sell/Marketplace activity; local public-safety and weather updates drive spikes.
• Video-first behavior on YouTube: DIY/home repair, outdoor recreation (hunting, fishing, powersports), vehicle maintenance, and homesteading content perform strongly; smart-TV/CTV viewing is common.
• Short-form growth: TikTok and Instagram Reels are gaining with 18–34 for local happenings, seasonal jobs, and regional tourism; reshared to Facebook for older audiences.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is the default across ages; Snapchat is the daily chat app for teens/younger adults.
• Shopping and recommendations: Facebook Marketplace and group referrals dominate local discovery; Pinterest influences home/craft projects among women.
• Professional networking remains niche: LinkedIn use is concentrated among education, healthcare, public sector, and small-business owners; infrequent daily use.
• News and sports chatter: X/Twitter used by a minority for Detroit teams, state news, and severe-weather tracking; engagement spikes around major events.
• Timing: Evenings and weekends see the highest local activity; weekday morning check-ins are common for news and road/weather conditions.