Ashland County

Ashland County, Wisconsin — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates)

• Population: ~16,000
• Age
  • Median age: ~41.7 years
  • Under 18: ~23%
  • 18 to 64: ~58–59%
  • 65 and over: ~18–19%
• Gender
  • Male: ~50%
  • Female: ~50%
• Race/ethnicity
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~80%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~12%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~5%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%
  • Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~0.5%
  • Asian (non-Hispanic): ~0.5%
• Households and housing
  • Households: ~6,700
  • Average household size: ~2.3
  • Family households: ~60% of households (married-couple ~44%)
  • Households with children under 18: ~27%
  • Tenure: ~71% owner-occupied, ~29% renter-occupied

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates. Numbers rounded for clarity.

Ashland County, WI snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: ~16,000 residents; ~15 people per sq. mile. Roughly half live in/near the City of Ashland, where connectivity is strongest; remote townships remain sparse and harder to serve.
• Estimated email users (18+): ~11,200 residents use email regularly (about 88–92% of adults), derived from rural-WI adoption rates.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–34: ~27%
  • 35–54: ~32%
  • 55–64: ~16%
  • 65+: ~25% Adoption is near-universal among younger/middle adults and lower but substantial among seniors.
• Gender split: Approximately even (≈50/50 male/female); email usage is effectively parity by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home internet adoption: ~75–85% of households; smartphone‑only internet use ~10–15%.
  • Continued expansion of fiber and fixed‑wireless since 2021 has improved speeds along populated corridors; the most rural areas still face limited choices and higher costs.
  • Public/library Wi‑Fi is an important access point; affordability pressures increased after the wind‑down of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024.

Note: Figures are modeled from recent Census/NTIA/Pew patterns applied to local demographics; use for planning/marketing, not compliance.

Below is a concise, evidence‑based snapshot of mobile phone usage in Ashland County, Wisconsin, with estimates and infrastructure context, highlighting how the county differs from statewide patterns. Figures are best‑available estimates derived from recent ACS population data, national/rural adoption benchmarks (Pew/CDC), and carrier/FCC coverage information for northern Wisconsin; treat them as ranges, not official counts.

User estimates (people, not lines)

• Population baseline: ~16,000 residents; ~12,500 adults (18+); older age profile than WI overall.
• Smartphone users
  • Adults: 10,500–11,500 (about 84–92% of adults; rural counties tend to run a few points below the ~90% statewide/urban benchmark).
  • Teens (13–17): 800–1,000 (very high adoption, but coverage gaps reduce constant use outside the US‑2 corridor).
  • Children under 13 with a phone/watch: 200–500.
  • Total unique mobile users (all ages, smartphones + basic phones): ~12,000–13,500 (roughly 75–85% of the population).
• Wireless‑only households (no landline): approximately mid‑ to high‑60s percent in Ashland County vs low‑ to mid‑70s percent statewide—reflecting slightly lower rural adoption among seniors and in patchy‑coverage areas.
• Households relying on mobile data as their primary home internet: ~10–14% in Ashland County vs ~8–10% statewide (driven by limited fixed options outside the City of Ashland and price sensitivity).

Demographic patterns (how Ashland differs from Wisconsin overall)

• Age: Higher share of 65+ residents than the state average. Senior smartphone adoption is lower than Wisconsin’s overall senior rate, and voice/text remains more common among older users where coverage is inconsistent.
• Income and affordability: Median household income trails the state, so cost‑saving behaviors are more common:
  • Higher use of prepaid/MVNO plans and periodic plan switching.
  • Greater participation in Lifeline on/near tribal lands; the ACP wind‑down in 2024 likely nudged some households toward mobile‑only connectivity or lower‑cost plans.
• Tribal communities: The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians accounts for a notably higher share of residents than the state’s small Native share.
  • Mobile adoption is strong, but historical coverage gaps and affordability challenges raised reliance on subsidized plans and community Wi‑Fi.
  • Recent federal/tribal broadband awards have begun to improve backhaul and last‑mile options, which should reduce mobile‑only reliance over time.
• Commute and travel patterns: Long rural drives concentrate usage along US‑2 and WI‑13; hands‑free calling, messaging, and navigation are critical. Interior forested areas see more dead zones than the state average.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (county specifics vs statewide)

• Coverage footprint
  • Strongest, most consistent service is along the Lake Superior shoreline, the City of Ashland, US‑2, and WI‑13. Interior townships and forested terrain south/east of the city experience more drop‑offs than typical statewide.
  • Residents and public safety reports commonly cite Verizon as the most pervasive rural signal in the Northwoods; AT&T coverage is solid on main corridors and supports FirstNet; T‑Mobile has improved notably in/near the city and along the lakeshore but can thin out faster off‑corridor. These patterns differ from many Wisconsin metros where all three have dense, overlapping capacity.
• 5G reality
  • 5G is present but uneven: low‑band 5G covers corridors with LTE‑like speeds; mid‑band 5G (faster) is mostly limited to the City of Ashland and immediate surroundings. This lags larger Wisconsin metros where mid‑band 5G is broader and faster.
  • Building penetration in older structures and along the lakeshore can be inconsistent, so many users fall back to LTE indoors.
• Capacity and congestion
  • Seasonal tourism and event traffic (Ashland as a gateway to the South Shore/Apostle Islands region) create weekend/summer congestion spikes uncommon in many inland Wisconsin counties of similar size.
• Backhaul and fiber underpinnings
  • The county benefits from incremental fiber/backhaul upgrades tied to Wisconsin PSC grants, federal programs, and tribal broadband awards (including projects on Bad River lands). These upgrades should stabilize mobile performance and enable future 5G capacity, but the build pace is slower than in Wisconsin’s urban counties.
• Public safety and resiliency
  • FirstNet adoption by local agencies has added Band‑14 capacity on select sites, improving rural coverage reliability relative to consumer networks during incidents—a difference that’s less pronounced in urban Wisconsin where commercial capacity is already dense.
• Dead zones and terrain
  • Forest canopy, river valleys, and wetland areas create more shadowing than the state norm, with noticeable gaps away from highways. Weather off Lake Superior can also impact reliability more than in southern Wisconsin.

What to watch next (implications for users and planners)

• Expect steady but modest 5G mid‑band expansion concentrated first in the City of Ashland and the US‑2 corridor; broader rural upgrades will likely trail the state.
• Continued fiber/backhaul builds (including tribal projects) should reduce mobile‑only dependence and improve cell site capacity, narrowing—but not eliminating—the county’s coverage/performance gap versus Wisconsin’s metro counties.
• Affordability will remain a key determinant of plan type and device upgrade cycles, keeping prepaid share higher than the statewide average.

Social media in Ashland County, WI — short snapshot (2025)

How many users

• Population: ~16,000. Adults ~12,500.
• Adult social media users: ~8,500–9,000 (about 68–72% of adults; rural U.S. rate).
• Teens (13–17): ~900–1,000 users (near-saturated use).
• Total users (all ages): roughly 9,500–10,000.

Age mix of users (share of local users)

• 13–17: ~9–10% (heavily Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube).
• 18–29: ~15–20% (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube; Snapchat still strong).
• 30–49: ~30–35% (Facebook, YouTube; Instagram moderate).
• 50–64: ~25–30% (Facebook, YouTube; some Pinterest).
• 65+: ~20–25% (Facebook, YouTube).

Gender breakdown

• Overall user base roughly even, slightly female-skewed (about 52–55% women).
• Platform skews (based on national patterns seen in rural areas too):
  • Facebook: more women (≈55–60%).
  • Instagram, Pinterest: more women (Pinterest women ≈70%+).
  • YouTube: more men (≈55–60%).
  • Reddit, X (Twitter): more men (≈60–70%).

Most-used platforms (estimated % of local adults who use each)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 60–65%
• Facebook Messenger: 55–60%
• Instagram: 30–35%
• TikTok: 22–28%
• Snapchat: 20–25% (higher among teens/20-somethings)
• Pinterest: 25–30% overall; among women ~35–40%
• LinkedIn: 10–15%
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Reddit: 10–12%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited local presence)
• WhatsApp: 8–12%

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: buy/sell groups, lost & found, road conditions, local events, school and county updates, and Marketplace for vehicles/outdoor gear.
• Video is practical and place-based: YouTube for “how-to,” hunting/fishing, DIY, small-engine/wood-heat fixes; short-form TikTok/Instagram Reels growing where bandwidth allows.
• Seasonal rhythms: spikes during winter storms, road closures, and summer festival/tourism season; Facebook Events drive attendance.
• Local commerce and jobs: small businesses lean on boosted Facebook posts; many job and gig listings posted to groups vs LinkedIn.
• Teens: Snapchat for daily messaging and groups; TikTok for trends/sports highlights; YouTube for longer content.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger dominant; SMS and Snapchat common; WhatsApp niche.
• Trust/localization: strong reliance on recommendations in local groups; admins/moderators play a visible role in rumor control.

Notes on method

• County-level platform data aren’t published; figures are estimates applying Pew Research’s 2023–2024 U.S. platform usage to a rural Wisconsin context and adjusting for the county’s older age mix. Consider them directional ranges rather than precise counts.