Calumet County

Calumet County, Wisconsin — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population

• 2020 Census: 52,442
• 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimate: ~53,000

Age

• Median age: ~40 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~16%

Sex

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (Hispanic can be any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~89–90%
• Hispanic or Latino: ~4–6%
• Asian: ~3–4%
• Black or African American: ~1%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native and other: <1% each

Households

• Total households: ~20,000–21,000
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~70–75%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78–80%
• Households with children under 18: ~30–35%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

Calumet County, WI snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~52,000; density ~165 people per sq. mi (2020 Census). Mixed rural–suburban; strongest connectivity near Appleton/Fox Cities edge and towns like Chilton, Brillion, New Holstein; more fixed‑wireless/DSL in rural areas.
• Email users: ~38,000–43,000 residents age 13+ (derived from adult share of population and near‑universal email use among online adults).
• Age adoption (share using email, approx.): 13–17: 80–85%; 18–29: 97–99%; 30–49: 95–97%; 50–64: 90–94%; 65+: 82–88%.
• Age mix of local email users (approx.): 13–17: 6%; 18–29: 18%; 30–49: 35%; 50–64: 25%; 65+: 16%.
• Gender split: roughly even (male ≈ female; gap likely <2 percentage points), reflecting national patterns.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription is high and rising (ACS trends suggest roughly upper‑80s to ~90% of households subscribe).
  • Growing fiber buildouts along populated corridors; rural pockets remain underserved but are improving via state/federal grants and co‑op expansions.
  • Mobile data is widely available (4G countywide; 5G in population centers); a minority (~10–15%) are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Public access via libraries, schools, and municipal Wi‑Fi supports residents without home broadband.

Notes: Figures are estimates synthesized from Census/ACS demographics and national email‑usage research (e.g., Pew).

Mobile phone usage in Calumet County, Wisconsin — snapshot and how it differs from the state

User estimates (orders of magnitude, 2024–2025)

• Population: roughly 53,000–55,000; adults 41,000–43,000.
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): about 39,000–42,000 adults (95–97% of adults, consistent with Pew and state ACS patterns).
• Smartphone users: about 36,000–39,000 adults (roughly 88–91% of adults; rural counties typically trail urban areas slightly, but Calumet’s higher incomes help close the gap).
• Households with a smartphone: approximately 89–92% of households (near the Wisconsin average, based on ACS Computer and Internet Use patterns).
• Households relying primarily on cellular/FWA for home internet: roughly low-teens percent, likely a few points higher than the statewide average (which is typically high single digits), due to rural coverage gaps and the growing availability of 4G/5G fixed‑wireless offers.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: Calumet skews family-oriented with a solid share of school‑age children and slightly fewer 18–24s than urban counties, plus a moderate 65+ share. That mix yields:
  • High multi-line family plan uptake.
  • Very high smartphone use among 18–64; seniors at ~75–80% smartphone adoption (below younger groups but rising).
• Income: Median household income is above the Wisconsin average, supporting:
  • More 5G-capable devices and wearables; more “device-per-person” households.
  • Lower basic-feature‑phone reliance than in lower‑income rural counties.
• Race/ethnicity: A more homogeneous population than the state’s urban counties means usage disparities are driven more by age and income than by language or race.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carrier presence: AT&T (including FirstNet), Verizon, T‑Mobile, and UScellular all operate in the county. UScellular’s relative strength in rural eastern Wisconsin is more noticeable here than in Milwaukee/Madison metros.
• 5G footprint:
  • Strongest around population clusters and commuter corridors: Sherwood/Harrison (Fox Cities edge), Chilton (US‑151/WI‑32/57), Brillion, New Holstein, WI‑114/55, and US‑10.
  • Interior farm/township areas often fall back to LTE; mid‑band 5G is less continuous than the state’s big metros.
• Terrain effects: The Niagara Escarpment/High Cliff area and rolling farmland can create signal shadowing. Lake Winnebago shoreline topography also influences dead zones and in‑building penetration.
• Backhaul and alternatives:
  • Towns are generally served by cable or fiber; rural areas use a mix of older DSL, fixed wireless (WISPs), and increasingly 4G/5G FWA. This pushes a higher-than-average share of “cellular-as-primary” home internet compared with the state overall.
  • Public-safety radio and shared tower infrastructure improvements have helped coverage near key corridors, but sparsely populated roads still see variable performance.
• Performance reality: Mid‑band 5G in towns commonly delivers 100–300 Mbps; rural LTE can drop to single-digit Mbps at cell edges. Signal boosters/hotspots are more commonly used in farm operations and outbuildings than in urban counties.

How Calumet differs from the Wisconsin average

• Device adoption: Overall smartphone adoption is near the state average, but multi-line family plans and 5G device penetration are slightly higher than average due to income and household composition.
• Network experience: More uneven mid‑band 5G continuity than the statewide picture (which is buoyed by Milwaukee/Madison/Green Bay); interior rural areas rely on LTE more often.
• Access patterns: A notably higher reliance on cellular and 5G fixed‑wireless for home broadband than the state average, reflecting rural last‑mile gaps despite good town coverage.
• Carrier mix: UScellular has a more visible role in rural coverage than in urbanized parts of the state; commuters frequently see carrier-to-carrier performance differences along US‑10 and WI‑55/57.
• Usage context: Commute‑centric load and farm/industrial IoT use (telemetry, precision ag) are more prominent drivers of mobile demand than in urban counties.

Sources and method (for estimation)

• U.S. Census Bureau county population and ACS “Computer and Internet Use” (S2801) 5‑year patterns for smartphone/household connectivity.
• Pew Research Center 2023–2024 smartphone ownership trends for adults (national baseline ~90%).
• FCC Broadband Map (2023–2024), carrier public 5G coverage disclosures for Wisconsin, and Wisconsin PSC rural broadband reporting for fixed‑wireless availability.
• Local geography and transportation corridors used to infer where 5G is strongest vs LTE fallback.

Note: Figures are presented as ranges/estimates because carrier adoption and coverage vary by neighborhood and over time; county‑level mobile ownership is not directly reported in a single official dataset and is inferred from state and rural‑county patterns plus Calumet’s demographics.

Here’s a concise, county‑level snapshot using Calumet County’s population context and applying the latest U.S. social media benchmarks (primarily Pew Research Center, 2024). Figures are estimates; local platform shares closely track U.S. patterns in similar suburban/rural counties.

Population context

• Population: ~53,000; adults (18+): ~41,000.
• Estimated adult social-media users: ~30,000–33,000 (about 72–80% of adults). Teens add several thousand additional users.

Most-used platforms (adult share of users; US benchmark in parentheses) and rough local counts

• YouTube (83%): ~26k adults
• Facebook (68%): ~21k
• Instagram (47%): ~15k
• TikTok (33%): ~10k–11k
• Snapchat (30%): ~9k–10k
• LinkedIn (30%): ~9k–10k
• Pinterest (30%): ~9k–10k
• WhatsApp (29%): ~9k
• Reddit (23%): ~7k
• X/Twitter (22%): ~7k
• Nextdoor (18%): ~5k–6k Notes: YouTube is mostly passive viewing; Facebook remains the widest “community” network. Nextdoor usage is concentrated in suburban neighborhoods.

Age patterns (local usage tends to mirror US)

• 13–17: Heavy Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok; Instagram growing; Facebook minimal except for groups/events.
• 18–29: Very high YouTube; strong Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok; Facebook moderate.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominant; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising; LinkedIn relevant for career networking.
• 50–64: Facebook first, YouTube second; Instagram modest; TikTok/X limited but growing for news/entertainment.
• 65+: Facebook for family/community updates; YouTube for how‑to/news; minimal elsewhere.

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Overall user base likely slightly female‑leaning (~52–55% of active users).
• Skews by platform: women higher on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men higher on YouTube, Reddit, X. Snapchat slightly female‑leaning; LinkedIn slightly male‑leaning.

Behavioral trends observed in similar WI suburban/rural counties and likely in Calumet

• Community-first Facebook usage: Heavy reliance on local Groups/Pages (schools, youth sports, churches, municipalities, emergency services), events, and Marketplace (vehicles, farm equipment, home goods).
• Video short‑form growth: TikTok and Instagram Reels used by local boutiques, restaurants, contractors, and creators; cross-posting common.
• Practical/DIY on YouTube: Strong consumption of how‑to, home and farm repair, outdoor/recreation content; meeting recordings and civic info when available.
• Snapchat as a coordination tool among teens/young adults (sports, social plans); limited brand interaction.
• LinkedIn used by commuters/professionals tied to Fox Cities/Green Bay metros (manufacturing, healthcare, education, engineering); recruiting and trades hiring active.
• Neighborhood chatter: Nextdoor pockets in subdivisions (Harrison/Darboy), mostly for safety, services, contractor referrals, lost/found, and city services.
• Marketplace/local commerce: High engagement with buy/sell/trade; frequent seasonal spikes (yard sales, renovation season, hunting/outdoor gear).
• Timing: Evenings and weekends drive peak engagement; weather events and school calendars noticeably shift local activity.

Sources/notes: Population from recent U.S. Census estimates; platform percentages from Pew Research Center (2024). County counts are derived by applying national rates to the adult population, so treat as directional estimates rather than exact measurements.