Marquette County

Marquette County, Michigan — key demographics

Population size

• 66,017 (2020 Census)
• ~66,400 (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimate)

Age (ACS 2019–2023)

• Median age: 40.3 years
• Under 18: 18.5%
• 18–24: 15.6%
• 25–44: 25.0%
• 45–64: 24.8%
• 65 and over: 16.1%

Gender (ACS 2019–2023)

• Male: 51.3%
• Female: 48.7%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; race alone unless noted)

• White: 89.9%
• Black or African American: 1.6%
• American Indian and Alaska Native: 3.2%
• Asian: 1.1%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1%
• Two or more races: 4.1%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 2.7%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households (occupied housing units): ~27,800
• Average household size: 2.25
• Family households: 56% of households
• Married-couple families: 44% of households
• One-person households: 34%
• Households with children under 18: 24%

Insights

• Predominantly White with a notable American Indian/Alaska Native presence relative to state averages.
• Age profile is balanced by Northern Michigan University, raising the 18–24 share, while the 65+ share is moderate for the Upper Peninsula.
• Smaller household size and a relatively high share of one-person and nonfamily households compared with U.S. averages.

Email usage snapshot – Marquette County, Michigan

• Estimated users: Population 66,017 (2020). About 80% are 18+, ≈52,800 adults. Applying ~92% U.S. adult email adoption yields ≈48,500–49,500 adult email users.
• Age distribution of email users (est.): 18–34 ≈ 30% (NMU boosts this cohort); 35–54 ≈ 34%; 55–64 ≈ 16%; 65+ ≈ 20%. Email adoption is highest among 18–34 (95–99%) and remains strong among 65+ (80–90%).
• Gender split: Near parity; ≈50% female, ≈50% male among users (email usage shows minimal gender gap nationally).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription ≈ 82–85%; ≥90% of households have a computer/device; smartphone‑only internet ≈ 9–12% (ACS-based regional norms).
  • Urban centers (Marquette, Ishpeming, Negaunee) have robust cable/fiber; rural townships rely more on DSL/fixed wireless, with lower subscribed speeds and higher satellite use.
  • Countywide 4G LTE coverage with expanding 5G along US‑41/US‑28 corridors; public Wi‑Fi widely available via libraries and Northern Michigan University.
  • NMU’s Educational Access Network (LTE over EBS spectrum) augments local fixed‑wireless connectivity.
• Density/connectivity context: Land area ≈1,808 sq mi; population density ≈36 people/sq mi—sparse settlement contributes to last‑mile costs and adoption gaps outside city cores.

Mobile phone usage in Marquette County, Michigan — 2024 snapshot

Topline user estimates

• Population and households: ≈66,000 residents; ≈28,000 households (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 est.; ACS 2018–2022)
• Adult smartphone users: ≈44,000 adults use a smartphone (method: county age structure applied to Pew 2023 ownership rates)
• Households with a cellular data plan (any member): ≈85% (≈23,800 households) (ACS S2801, 2018–2022)
• Smartphone-only home internet households (cellular data plan with no fixed broadband): ≈14% (≈3,900 households), higher than Michigan overall at ≈10–11% (ACS S2801, 2018–2022)

Demographic breakdown (ownership and reliance)

• Age
  • 18–24: Very high smartphone ownership (≈95–98%); heavy mobile data reliance due to Northern Michigan University student population
  • 25–64: High ownership (≈90%+), with mobile hotspot use more common than state average in exurban/rural townships
  • 65+: Lower ownership (≈70%); more voice/text-centric usage and higher likelihood of keeping a landline than state urban peers
• Income and education
  • Lower-income households show above-average smartphone-only internet reliance (estimated 20%+ among households under 150% of the poverty level, vs ≈14% countywide), driven by limited affordable fixed options in rural areas (ACS micro-patterns; NTIA Internet Use Survey patterns)
  • College-enrolled and recent graduates in Marquette city show higher 5G handset penetration and app-based service use than the state average, narrowing the rural–urban digital gap within the county
• Geography within the county
  • Urban core (City of Marquette and U.S.-41/M-28 corridor): near-ubiquitous 4G LTE and low-band 5G; mid-band 5G available in and near the city
  • Rural townships (e.g., Powell, Michigamme, Skandia) and Huron Mountains region: more voice/data dead zones and device-to-network fallback to LTE/3GPP low-band; higher dependence on signal boosters and Wi‑Fi calling

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Networks and coverage
  • All three national operators (AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile) offer 4G LTE countywide along primary corridors; low-band 5G is broadly available, with mid-band 5G concentrated in and around Marquette
  • FirstNet (AT&T) public-safety coverage is established along major routes and population centers
  • Northern Michigan University’s Educational Access Network (LTE/CBRS-based) provides supplemental broadband in parts of Marquette and surrounding UP communities, uniquely raising the availability of SIM-based/portable access for students and households
• Speeds and reliability
  • Typical median mobile download speeds in the county cluster around 50–60 Mbps in Marquette and 20–40 Mbps in rural townships; Michigan statewide medians trend closer to 80–100 Mbps (aggregated 2024 Ookla/Opensignal reporting)
  • Seasonal load: Summer tourism and university move-in periods produce noticeable congestion spikes on downtown and shoreline sectors
• Device ecosystem
  • Higher share of budget and midrange Android devices and longer replacement cycles than state urban counties, reflecting income and coverage realities
  • Above-average hotspot attachment and signal-booster use in rural homes and small businesses

Trends that differ from Michigan statewide

• Higher smartphone-only home internet reliance: ≈14% of households vs ≈10–11% statewide; reflects limited fixed broadband choices in rural areas
• More LTE dependence and less mid-band 5G reach outside the Marquette urban core, resulting in lower median mobile speeds than the state average
• Greater geographic variability in service quality: corridor vs interior townships show a wider performance gap than typical Lower Peninsula counties
• Strong student-driven adoption in the city: despite an older rural population, the university presence props up overall smartphone penetration and 5G device share
• More prepaid plans and longer device lifecycles than metro Michigan, linked to income mix and coverage constraints
• Unique institutional network (NMU EAN) increases the role of SIM-based/portable broadband in education and homework access compared with the state overall

Key statistics at a glance

• ≈44,000 adult smartphone users
• ≈85% of households have a cellular data plan
• ≈14% of households are smartphone-only for home internet
• County median mobile download ≈50–60 Mbps in urban core; notably lower in rural areas, below statewide medians
• 5G: low-band broadly available; mid-band concentrated in Marquette city; LTE remains the de facto coverage layer countywide

Sources and methods

• U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2018–2022 (device and subscription indicators; household counts)
• Pew Research Center 2023 (age-specific smartphone ownership rates, applied to county age structure for user counts)
• FCC National Broadband Map and Michigan High-Speed Internet Office materials (coverage and technology availability)
• Ookla/Opensignal 2024 aggregates (state vs rural speed differentials)
• Northern Michigan University documentation on the Educational Access Network (CBRS/LTE footprint)

Implications

• Mobile networks are the primary on-ramp for thousands of households; improvements to mid-band 5G coverage and fixed wireless access could materially reduce the urban–rural gap
• Capacity upgrades around the university and summer hotspots would directly address predictable seasonal congestion
• Programs that pair low-cost 5G devices with coverage enhancements in interior townships will yield outsized gains relative to state-average interventions

Marquette County, MI social media snapshot (2024–2025)

Baseline population

• Residents: ≈66,000; adults (18+): ≈52,000
• Broadband access is widespread (ACS data show the vast majority of households subscribe to broadband), enabling high social adoption

Estimated platform reach among adults (modeled by applying Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. adoption rates to Marquette County’s adult population)

• YouTube: ~83% → ≈43,000 adults
• Facebook: ~68% → ≈35,000
• Instagram: ~50% → ≈26,000
• TikTok: ~33% → ≈17,000
• Pinterest: ~35% → ≈18,000
• LinkedIn: ~30% → ≈16,000
• Snapchat: ~27% → ≈14,000
• X (Twitter): ~22% → ≈11,000
• Reddit: ~22% → ≈11,000
• Nextdoor: ~19% → ≈10,000 Interpretation: At least ~43,000 adults in the county use a major social platform (driven by YouTube); Facebook remains the broadest “social network” for community reach.

Age-group usage patterns

• 13–24: Very high on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok; heavy use of Stories/Reels and campus/community event discovery (NMU influence). YouTube is near-universal for entertainment and how‑to.
• 25–44: Facebook + Instagram core; frequent Facebook Marketplace usage; rising TikTok for food/outdoors content; YouTube for DIY and product research.
• 45–64: Facebook Groups for local news, school and sports updates, civic info; YouTube for tutorials and regional news clips.
• 65+: Facebook for family/community updates; YouTube for news and how‑to; limited Instagram/TikTok use but growing.

Gender breakdown (usage tendencies)

• Overall social adoption is roughly balanced by gender.
• Platform skews: Pinterest and Instagram lean female; Reddit and X lean male; Facebook is broadly balanced; Snapchat leans younger and slightly female; LinkedIn balanced to slight male tilt in tech/engineering roles.

Most‑used platforms locally (by estimated adult penetration)

1. YouTube (~83%)
2. Facebook (~68%)
3. Instagram (~50%)
4. Pinterest (35%) and LinkedIn (30%) cluster
5. TikTok (~33%) closely competitive with Pinterest/LinkedIn depending on age mix
6. Snapchat (~27%)
7. X and Reddit (~22% each)
8. Nextdoor (~19%)

Behavioral trends in Marquette County

• Facebook Groups are the hub for hyperlocal information: weather/road conditions, school and event updates, lost‑and‑found, buy/sell (Marketplace), and nonprofit/community drives.
• Strong seasonality: winter storm and trail conditions spike engagement; summer tourism/outdoors content (Lake Superior shoreline, trails, mountain biking, ore dock vistas) drives Instagram/TikTok activity.
• Student and young‑professional presence (NMU) boosts Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and short‑form video; local venues and festivals benefit from Reels/TikTok discovery.
• YouTube is the go‑to for DIY, home/auto repair, outdoor skills, and product reviews; local businesses see impact with short how‑to and explainer videos.
• Civic and public‑service entities (schools, city/county, EMS) reliably reach residents via Facebook posts and cross‑posted alerts; cross‑posting to Instagram expands reach to younger adults.

Notes on methodology

• Population baselines draw from recent Census/ACS estimates; platform figures are modeled by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption percentages to Marquette County’s adult population. Percentages reflect adult penetration; counts are rounded estimates.