Ontonagon County

Key demographics for Ontonagon County, Michigan

• Population size:

  • 5,816 (2020 Decennial Census)

• Age:

  • Median age: ~57 years
  • Under 18: ~15%
  • 18–64: ~52%
  • 65 and over: ~33%
  • Profile: one of Michigan’s older counties, with about one-third of residents 65+

• Gender:

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive categories):

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~94.7%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~1.7%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1.6%
  • Black, non-Hispanic: ~0.3%
  • Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0.3%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~1.4%

• Households:

  • Total households: ~2,960
  • Average household size: ~1.95
  • Family households: ~61% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~52% of households
  • One-person households: ~37% (about half of these are age 65+ living alone)
  • Average family size: ~2.4

Insights: Very small, aging population; predominantly White; many single-person and older-adult households, reflecting a high share of retirees and limited in-migration.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (DP05, S1101).

Ontonagon County, MI is small, rural, and older, shaping how residents use email.

• Estimated email users: ~4,200 residents (about 89% of adults; ~75% of total population).
• Age mix of email users (share of users): 18–29: ~14%; 30–49: ~23%; 50–64: ~26%; 65+: ~37%. The county has one of Michigan’s oldest profiles (median age mid‑50s), so seniors make up an unusually large share of users.
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male; usage rates are essentially parity by gender.
• Digital access: About three‑quarters of households have a broadband subscription and roughly mid‑80s percent have a computer device; a small but meaningful minority rely mainly on smartphones for internet access. Adoption is solid among working‑age adults and seniors but constrained by affordability and infrastructure gaps typical of rural Upper Peninsula counties.
• Density and connectivity context: Population is roughly 5.6k spread over ~1,311 square miles of land (≈4.4 people per square mile). Low density and long last‑mile runs make fiber rollout sparse outside village centers; many locations depend on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite, which can limit speeds and reliability, reinforcing email’s role as a lightweight, universal communications channel.

Mobile phone usage in Ontonagon County, Michigan — 2024 snapshot

Baseline population and households

• Population: ~5,500 residents (2023 estimate)
• Occupied households: ~2,650
• Age profile (approximate): under 18 (14%), 18–29 (9%), 30–49 (18%), 50–64 (28%), 65+ (31%). The county skews substantially older than Michigan overall.

User estimates

• Total mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ~4,675 people, or ~85% of the total population. This is several points lower than Michigan’s statewide rate, reflecting the county’s older age structure and rurality.
• Smartphone users: ~4,275 people (about 78% of the population; ~90% of adults 18–64 and ~76% of seniors 65+). Statewide smartphone prevalence runs higher (mid- to high-80s percent of adults), so Ontonagon is modestly below Michigan on smartphone penetration.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): 1,540 of ~2,650 households (58%). That is notably lower than Michigan’s largely urban/suburban counties, where wireless-only shares are typically in the mid- to high-60s.
• Households relying on cellular data as their primary home internet: 18% (480 households), versus a lower share statewide. This reflects limited fixed broadband in parts of the county.
• 5G-capable smartphones among local users: roughly 60–65% of smartphones in use, several points lower than in Michigan’s metro counties, due to slower device replacement cycles in an older, lower-density market.

Demographic breakdown and adoption patterns

• Seniors (65+): ~31% of residents; smartphone adoption around three-quarters of seniors. Higher landline retention and more basic/voice-first devices than the state average.
• Working-age adults (30–64): comprise ~46% of residents; high mobile adoption (95%+ have a mobile phone), with strong but not universal smartphone adoption given device age and coverage constraints.
• Youth (13–17): ~200+ teen smartphone users; adoption near ubiquity among teens but absolute numbers are small due to population size.
• Income and cost sensitivity: Lower median household income than the state average drives a higher share of budget and prepaid/MVNO plans relative to metro Michigan.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage and technology mix:
  • 4G/LTE: Primary layer countywide, strongest along US‑45, M‑28, M‑64, and in/around Ontonagon, White Pine, Bruce Crossing, and Greenland/Mass City. Indoor coverage can be weak in dispersed housing and heavy forest.
  • 5G: Low-band 5G is present in and near population centers and highway corridors but remains patchy; mid-band 5G (C-band/n41) is limited or absent, so 5G speeds often resemble good LTE. This is behind Michigan’s metro counties, where mid-band 5G is common.
• Carriers:
  • Verizon and AT&T provide the most consistent county coverage; T‑Mobile coverage is improving on low-band spectrum but is still spottier away from primary corridors than in Lower Peninsula metros.
  • FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) coverage follows major corridors and public-safety sites; useful for responders but does not eliminate dead zones in wilderness areas.
• Dead zones and seasonal strain:
  • Notable gaps in the Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Trap Hills, and interior forested areas; hikers often encounter no service.
  • Summer tourism and lake-effect weather can stress limited backhaul in small cells, causing evening slowdowns in villages and campgrounds.
• Speeds (typical user experience):
  • LTE: ~5–25 Mbps in towns/along highways; sub‑5 Mbps or no signal in remote interiors.
  • Low-band 5G: ~20–60 Mbps when available; mid-band 5G performance common in metro Michigan (100+ Mbps) is generally not available here.
• Backhaul and tower density:
  • Sparse macro-site grid (on the order of a few dozen sites across a large, heavily forested land area), with microwave backhaul still used on some segments; fiber-fed sites cluster along main roads and in towns. Fewer sites per square mile than in downstate counties results in larger cells and more fringe coverage.

How Ontonagon differs from Michigan overall

• Lower overall smartphone penetration and higher reliance on basic/older devices, driven by an older population and cost sensitivity.
• Greater share of households using cellular as their primary home internet due to limited fixed broadband options in some areas.
• More landline retention; wireless-only household share lags urban/suburban Michigan.
• 5G availability and performance trail the state’s metro areas; mid-band 5G is limited, so performance gains over LTE are modest.
• Coverage gaps are common in wilderness and deep forest; residents rely more on Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters at home than typical downstate users.
• Seasonal congestion is more pronounced around parks, lakes, and campgrounds, a pattern less evident in most urban counties.

Key implications and trends

• Device upgrade cycles are slower; expect 5G-capable share to rise as older LTE-only devices age out over the next 24–36 months, but performance gains will be constrained until more mid-band 5G is deployed.
• As state and federal broadband projects extend fiber deeper into the county, dependence on cellular-only home internet should ease, improving mobile capacity for on-the-go use.
• Public safety and outdoor users will continue to need offline maps, satellite messaging devices, or planned connectivity in backcountry zones given persistent dead spots.

Ontonagon County, MI — social media snapshot (2024 modeled)

Headline user stats

• Adult social media users (18+): ~3,300 (about 68% of adults)
• Total social media users (13+): ~3,600
• Most-used platforms among adults (percent of Ontonagon adults who use each):
  • YouTube: 78%
  • Facebook: 66%
  • Instagram: 32%
  • Pinterest: 32%
  • TikTok: 25%
  • X (Twitter): 18%
  • Snapchat: 16%
  • LinkedIn: 20%
  • Reddit: 14%

Age profile of users (share of all social media users in the county)

• 18–29: 11%
• 30–49: 29%
• 50–64: 34%
• 65+: 26%

Gender breakdown

• Overall users: ~53% women, 47% men
• Platform skews:
  • More women: Facebook, Instagram (slight), Pinterest (strong)
  • More men: YouTube (slight), Reddit (strong), X (moderate)
  • Near-even: TikTok, Snapchat (younger base)

Behavioral trends observed in rural, older-skew counties like Ontonagon

• Facebook is the community backbone: heavy reliance on local Groups (township, schools, events, buy/sell/Marketplace), storm/outage updates, road and weather conditions, and civic information.
• YouTube is utility-first: DIY home/auto repairs, outdoor/hunting/fishing content, equipment reviews, local church/organization streams, and how-tos; largely lean-back viewing.
• Instagram is business-facing more than resident-facing: used by tourism, outdoor outfitters, dining, and events to reach summer visitors; posts cross-shared to Facebook for reach.
• TikTok and Snapchat are niche: concentrated among teens/20s; used for entertainment and private friend networks, not for public community coordination.
• News and sports follow: regional TV/press pages on Facebook; X used by a smaller, news/sports-oriented minority.
• Marketplace > e-commerce: local buy/sell trades dominate over national retail links; strong seasonal swings (outdoor gear, snowmobiles/ATVs, firewood).
• Participation style: more passive consumption and sharing than original content creation; trust and engagement highest for posts from known locals and groups.
• Access patterns: patchy broadband favors mobile-friendly, low-friction formats; short videos and simple photo posts outperform long live streams outside of major events.

Method note and sources

• Figures are 2024 modeled estimates using Ontonagon’s age structure from recent ACS data and Pew Research Center’s 2024 platform adoption by age and gender, with rural adjustments (rural areas skew slightly higher on Facebook, lower on Instagram/Snapchat/LinkedIn/Reddit/X). Numbers are rounded for clarity. Sources: Pew Research Center (Social Media Use in 2024), U.S. Census Bureau ACS (latest 5-year).