Furnas County

Here are concise, current demographic highlights for Furnas County, Nebraska.

Population

• Total population: 4,636 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: about 48 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~26%

Sex

• Male: ~50.5%
• Female: ~49.5% (ACS 2018–2022)

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census; Hispanic is any race)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~92–93%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~4%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5–0.7%
• Black: ~0.2%
• Asian: ~0.2%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~2,050
• Average household size: ~2.2 persons
• Family households: ~59% of households
• Married-couple households: ~53% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~25–27%
• Individuals living alone: ~32% (about half of these age 65+)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (PL 94-171) and American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Furnas County, NE snapshot (estimates):

• Scale and density: 4,600 residents across ~720 sq mi (6–7 people/sq mi).
• Digital access: About 70–75% of households have a broadband subscription and ~85% have a computer (ACS 2018–2022 5‑yr). Smartphone‑only internet users likely 10–15%.
• Email users: ~3,100–3,400 residents use email (roughly 75% online x ~92% of online adults use email; Pew research).
• Age pattern: Email adoption is highest among younger adults and still strong among seniors.
  • 18–29: ~95% use email
  • 30–49: ~96%
  • 50–64: ~90–92%
  • 65+: ~80–85% Given the county’s older age profile, seniors likely make up ~25–30% of local email users.
• Gender split: Email use is essentially even by gender; the county’s slight female population majority yields a near 50/50 user split.
• Trends and connectivity: Adoption has been rising with ongoing fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts supported by state/federal programs (e.g., Nebraska Broadband Bridge, BEAD). Coverage is strongest in towns and along highways; gaps persist in sparsely populated areas. Public Wi‑Fi via libraries/schools helps fill access gaps.

Note: Figures are approximations using ACS and national email‑use benchmarks.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Furnas County, Nebraska (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)

Population context (baseline for estimates)

• Residents: roughly 4,500–4,700 (2020 Census ~4,636; small year-to-year decline typical of rural counties).
• Older age profile: median age high-40s; 65+ share around 27–30% vs Nebraska ~16–18%.
• Settlement pattern: small towns (Cambridge, Arapahoe, Oxford, Beaver City) plus widely dispersed farms/ranches along the Republican River valley and US-6/34 corridor.

User estimates

• Unique mobile phone users (any mobile phone): about 3,600–4,100 residents.
  • Built from: adults with a phone plus most teens; excludes many younger children and a small older cohort with no mobile device.
• Smartphone users: approximately 3,100–3,600.
  • Adults: 80–85% smartphone adoption (lower than Nebraska’s urban rate, closer to rural national benchmarks).
  • Teens: >90% smartphone adoption.
• Basic/feature phone users: roughly 300–500 (skewed to 65+).
• Mobile-only home internet households: 8–12% countywide, with a split:
  • Lower inside town limits where local telcos offer fiber/DSL.
  • Higher on farms and acreages where fixed broadband is limited; many rely on smartphone hotspots or fixed‑wireless.
• Landline retention: meaningfully higher than the state average among seniors; common as a backup due to spotty indoor LTE/5G in some farmhouses.

How Furnas differs from the state

• Age-driven adoption gap: Smartphone penetration and app intensity trail state averages because of a larger senior share; feature phones and pared‑down plans are more common.
• Coverage reality: Dependable LTE in towns and along US‑6/34; more dead zones and fringe coverage in valleys and low-density areas than most Nebraskans see in the I‑80 urban corridor.
• 5G profile: Predominantly low-band/“extended range” 5G with speeds similar to good LTE; mid‑band 5G that’s common in Omaha/Lincoln is sparse, so real-world speed gains are smaller than the state average.
• Carrier mix: National carriers plus Viaero Wireless matter locally. Verizon and AT&T are the default in many rural spots; T‑Mobile has improved but is still more variable off the highway. Some devices roam on Viaero in fringe areas—less typical in metro Nebraska.
• Use cases: Agriculture and utility monitoring (LTE Cat‑M/NB‑IoT, telematics, remote pivot control) are visible drivers of data and line additions in-season—unlike urban counties where growth is video/social-heavy.
• Network add‑ons: Signal boosters and Wi‑Fi Calling are notably more relied upon indoors than statewide averages.
• Affordability: With ACP subsidies paused/ended, cost sensitivity is acute; prepaid and limited/unlimited-lite plans have higher share than in metro Nebraska.

Demographic breakdown (and implications for mobile)

• Age
  • 65+: roughly 27–30% of residents; lower smartphone adoption (65–75%), more voice/SMS-centric use, and higher landline retention.
  • 25–64: core working-age users; near-parity with state in smartphone and data-plan adoption, especially among commuters and small businesses.
  • 13–24: high smartphone penetration; heavy mobile video/social use similar to statewide, but overall fewer users given the smaller cohort size.
• Income and occupation
  • Median household income below the state median; higher prevalence of prepaid and shared family plans; hotspots used as a budget alternative to fixed internet outside fiber footprints.
  • Agriculture, trades, and public sector drive device needs such as rugged phones, PTT apps, asset tracking, and seasonal data spikes.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Predominantly White non-Hispanic; small but important Hispanic/Latino population tied to ag/seasonal work. Mobile is frequently the primary internet for newer or more mobile households; Spanish-language plans/MVNOs see niches of demand.

Digital infrastructure points

• Macro cellular
  • A few dozen macro sites in and around the county, concentrated near Cambridge, Arapahoe, Oxford, Beaver City, and along US‑6/34; sparser spacing south of the highway and in river/creek valleys.
  • Verizon and AT&T generally strongest in rural stretches; T‑Mobile improved along highways and in towns; Viaero provides key fill-in and roaming in fringe pockets.
• 5G and capacity
  • 5G low-band widely present in/near towns; mid-band 5G capacity layers are limited relative to the state’s urban counties.
  • Peak town speeds: commonly 25–150 Mbps depending on carrier and time of day; rural stretches: 5–40 Mbps LTE/low-band 5G, with occasional sub‑5 Mbps in valleys or at cell edges.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Fiber routes follow the US‑6/34 corridor and into towns via local telcos (e.g., Cambridge/Arapahoe/Oxford-area providers); these underpin the best-performing mobile sectors.
  • Outside towns, some sites rely on microwave backhaul, which constrains capacity versus fiber-fed urban sites.
• Fixed wireless and CBRS
  • WISPs use 5 GHz and CBRS (3.5 GHz) to reach farmsteads lacking fiber/DSL; these installations often share towers with cellular gear, creating mixed-use rural sites.
• Public safety and reliability
  • AT&T FirstNet coverage is solid on main roads and in towns; volunteer fire/EMS depend on LTE for data. E‑911 and VoLTE are standard; Wi‑Fi Calling is a common mitigation for indoor dead spots.

Usage patterns to expect

• Seasonal swings: Measurable traffic bumps during planting/harvest and county events (fairs/sports), stressing limited rural sectors more than typical statewide patterns.
• Device mix: Slightly older handsets in circulation than statewide; upgrade cycles lengthened by cost sensitivity and weaker 5G benefits outside towns.
• Business lines: Higher share of rugged devices, hotspots, and telemetry SIMs versus urban counties.

What this means for planning

• Marketing and service: Emphasize coverage reliability, Wi‑Fi Calling, and boosters; unlimited-lite and prepaid plans resonate. Bundling with local fixed providers is effective inside towns.
• Network targeting: Greatest return from adding capacity or mid‑band 5G sectors at town macros and along US‑6/34; selective rural fills in valleys can remove outsized pain points.
• Digital divide: Outreach to seniors (device training) and farm households (signal solutions) can lift adoption more than generic statewide programs.

Notes on methodology

• Estimates synthesize recent ACS population/age structure, Pew rural smartphone adoption benchmarks, FCC broadband availability filings, carrier public coverage maps, and typical rural Nebraska network patterns as of 2023–2024. For precision, validate with carrier drive tests, local tower inventories, and a short resident/business survey.

Here’s a concise, data‑informed snapshot for Furnas County, Nebraska. Note: precise county-level platform stats aren’t published; figures below are modeled from the county’s population profile (≈4,600 residents; ≈3,600 adults), rural Nebraska patterns, and recent Pew U.S. social-media benchmarks.

Headline numbers

• Adult social‑media users: ~2,600–2,900 (about 72–80% of adults).
• Gender mix of users: roughly even (≈50/50). Platform skews: Instagram/TikTok/Pinterest lean female; X/Reddit lean male.
• Age mix of adult users (share of total adult users, est.):
  • 18–29: ~18–20%
  • 30–49: ~30%
  • 50–64: ~24%
  • 65+: ~26–28% (Facebook/YouTube heavy; lower use elsewhere)

Most‑used platforms among adults (percent of all adults; rough ranges)

• YouTube: 68–73% (~2,450–2,650)
• Facebook: 62–68% (~2,250–2,450)
• Instagram: 25–32% (~900–1,150)
• TikTok: 18–24% (~650–860)
• Snapchat: 15–22% (~540–790; concentrated under 35)
• Pinterest: 18–25% (~650–900; women ~30–40%)
• X/Twitter: 10–15% (~360–540)
• WhatsApp: 8–12% (~290–430)
• Reddit: 7–12% (~250–430)
• LinkedIn: 6–10% (~215–360)
• Nextdoor: 2–5% (niche)

Age‑group usage patterns (adults)

• 18–29: 90%+ on at least one platform; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat dominate; YouTube universal; Facebook used for local ties/events.
• 30–49: ~80–90% on social; Facebook + YouTube core, Instagram moderate; Messenger primary for family logistics; Marketplace heavy.
• 50–64: ~70–80% on social; Facebook first, YouTube second; Pinterest for projects/recipes; TikTok growth via short news/weather.
• 65+: ~55–60% on social; Facebook for community groups, church, obits; YouTube for how‑tos, health, farm/DIY content.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community first: High engagement in local Facebook Groups (buy/sell/trade, yard sales, school/booster clubs, road/weather alerts).
• Marketplace matters: Facebook Marketplace is a go‑to for vehicles, equipment, furniture, and farm/acreage items.
• Local events drive peaks: County fair, school sports, church functions, benefits; Facebook Live and YouTube streams perform well.
• Agriculture + weather: Strong followership for ag markets, equipment tips, co‑op updates, storm trackers; short, practical videos win.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger > SMS for many; Snapchat DMs among younger users; WhatsApp niche.
• Content style: Authentic, low‑production photo/video, faces and names recognized locally, straightforward captions, clear CTAs.
• Timing: Engagement clusters early morning (6–8 am), lunch (11:30–1), and evenings (7–9). Weeknights and Sunday see steady activity.
• Trust dynamics: Known local pages and individuals outperform brand‑new accounts; fact‑forward posts and useful links reduce skepticism.
• Connectivity reality: Mobile‑first; keep videos short (<60–90s) and files light due to variable rural bandwidth.

How to use this

• Lead with Facebook + YouTube; add Instagram or TikTok for reach under 40. Use Groups and Marketplace for distribution.
• Emphasize local names, schools, churches, farms, and service orgs. Post around morning/evening peaks.
• Favor practical value: event info, deadlines, offers, weather/road updates, “how‑to” clips. Include phone/tap‑to‑directions CTAs.

Method note

• Estimates synthesize 2020–2023 population data for Furnas County and recent U.S./rural social‑media adoption patterns (e.g., Pew Research). Ranges reflect uncertainty at the county level.