Florence County

Here are concise, census-based demographics for Florence County, Wisconsin. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census and 2018–2022 ACS 5‑year estimates); ACS values are estimates.

• Population

  • Total population: ~4,560 (2020 Census; ACS 2018–2022 is similar)
  • Median age: ~55–56 years

• Age distribution (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Under 18: ~15%
  • 18 to 64: ~56%
  • 65 and over: ~29%

• Sex (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; alone or in combination unless noted)

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~95–96%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
  • Black or African American: <1%
  • Asian: <1%
  • Two or more races: ~2–3%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~1–2%

• Households (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Total households: ~2,200
  • Average household size: ~2.1 persons
  • Family households: ~60% of households (majority married-couple)
  • Nonfamily households: ~40%
  • Households with someone age 65+: ~40–45%

Summary for Florence County, Wisconsin (approximate)

• Estimated email users: 2,900–3,200 adults. Basis: ~4,600 residents; ~86% adults; ~80–88% internet adoption in rural areas; ~92% of online adults use email (Pew/ACS trends).

• Age distribution of email users (reflects older population profile): • 18–29: ~10–13% • 30–49: ~25–30% • 50–64: ~30–33% • 65+: ~27–30%

• Gender split among users: ~50/50 (population is roughly 51% male, 49% female; email use is similar by gender).

• Digital access trends: • Household broadband subscription: ~75–82% (ACS-like rural benchmarks), with 10–15% relying on smartphone-only or cellular/fixed wireless. • Fiber is limited outside town centers; many households use DSL, cable where available, or satellite in remote areas. • Fixed wireless coverage and fiber builds are expanding via Wisconsin broadband grants and federal programs (e.g., BEAD), but adoption rises gradually due to cost/availability.

• Local density/connectivity facts: • Very sparse: ~9 people per square mile across ~500 sq mi of largely forested, lake-dotted terrain with many seasonal homes. • Connectivity is strongest in/near the Town of Florence and corridors; gaps persist in outlying areas.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Florence County, Wisconsin

Quick snapshot

• Small, rural, heavily forested border county (approx. 4,600 residents year-round) with many seasonal homes and visitors. Terrain and low tower density shape usage and coverage.
• Mobile service is dominated by LTE with selective low‑band 5G on major corridors; mid‑band 5G capacity is sparse compared with urban/suburban Wisconsin.

User estimates

• Total mobile phone users present on a typical day (residents): roughly 3,700–4,000 adult users, plus 250–300 teens. Peak-season device presence can rise 25–40% due to cabins, tourism, and cross‑border traffic from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
• Smartphone adoption:
  • Adults overall: about 80–85% of adults use a smartphone (a bit below Wisconsin’s statewide rate).
  • Ages 65+: 65–75% smartphone adoption; a higher share than average use basic/flip phones.
  • Teens: near‑universal smartphone use.
• Primary internet via mobile: a notably higher share of households rely on mobile hotspots or phone tethering as their main home internet than the state average (roughly 20–30% here versus lower statewide).
• Plan mix: prepaid and budget MVNO plans are used more often than statewide; Lifeline participation is material. The end of the federal ACP discount in 2024 likely pushed some users toward lower‑cost plans, data rationing, or shared hotspots.

Demographic patterns that influence usage

• Older population: Florence County’s median age is higher than the state’s, raising the share of basic‑phone users and voice‑first behavior; smartphone uptake among seniors is growing but still trails the state average.
• Working‑age adults: higher propensity to use phones as backup/primary broadband due to limited wired options; hotspot devices and data add‑ons are common.
• Seasonal residents and visitors: pronounced weekend/summer spikes in traffic around lakes, campgrounds, and trailheads; networks can feel congested despite low year‑round demand.
• Income and device lifecycle: longer device replacement cycles; more refurbished/second‑hand phones in use than statewide.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers with notable presence: Verizon and UScellular have comparatively strong rural footprints; AT&T/FirstNet covers main corridors and public‑safety needs; T‑Mobile’s 600 MHz low‑band reaches town centers and highways but is spottier in forested interiors. Regional provider Cellcom (Nsight) also operates in the broader NE Wisconsin market.
• Radio access:
  • LTE is the baseline. Low‑band 5G (e.g., 600/700/850 MHz) appears along US‑141 and around the town of Florence; mid‑band 5G (e.g., C‑band/2.5 GHz) is limited or absent across much of the county, so 5G speeds often resemble good LTE.
  • Tower spacing is wide; valleys and dense forest produce dead zones, especially away from state highways and in county forest/wild river areas.
• Backhaul: Fiber follows main routes and into town; many rural sites rely on microwave backhaul, constraining capacity compared with urban Wisconsin.
• Cross‑border and roaming: Phones may attach to Michigan UP towers along the Menominee River; this can affect 911 routing and caller location if not handled by the network correctly.
• Workarounds users employ: Wi‑Fi calling at home, window/roof antennas, consumer boosters, and caching content offline. Public Wi‑Fi at the library/schools is an important supplement.
• Public safety: FirstNet Band 14 coverage focuses on highways and the county seat; responders still encounter no‑signal pockets off‑road. Residents should verify local Text‑to‑911 availability.

How Florence County differs from Wisconsin overall

• Lower smartphone penetration, driven mainly by an older population and patchier coverage away from highways.
• Heavier reliance on mobile data as primary/backup home broadband due to limited cable/fiber reach; satellite and fixed wireless fill gaps.
• Seasonal surges materially affect perceived performance, unlike most of the state where demand is steadier.
• UScellular and regional Cellcom play a larger role than they do in metro areas; T‑Mobile mid‑band 5G is less prevalent.
• More voice/SMS‑centric usage among seniors, and greater dependence on Wi‑Fi calling and signal‑boosting gear.
• Affordability pressures (post‑ACP) and lower incomes translate into higher prepaid/MVNO share and tighter data usage habits.

Implications

• Coverage improvements with a few additional macro sites or upgraded backhaul could meaningfully raise reliability because current tower spacing is the limiting factor.
• Targeted mid‑band 5G or improved LTE capacity in summer hotspots (lakes, trailheads, parks) would address the most acute congestion.
• Senior‑focused smartphone training and spam‑call protection have outsized benefits locally.
• Providers and the county can reduce the homework and telehealth gap by expanding library/school Wi‑Fi hours and promoting low‑cost plans and device‑loan programs.

Note: County‑level mobile user counts are not officially published; figures above are reasoned estimates based on population, rural adoption patterns, statewide trends, and observed coverage characteristics in northern Wisconsin. For planning, validate against the latest ACS demographics, FCC broadband maps, and carrier coverage tools.

Here’s a concise, county-scale snapshot using Florence County’s small, older-skewing population and rural-adjusted rates from recent Pew Research Center findings. Figures are estimates; ranges reflect uncertainty at such a small population base.

Population baseline

• Residents: ~4.5–4.7K
• Adults (18+): ~3.6–3.9K
• Teens (13–17): ~250–300

Estimated social media users (13+)

• Total users: ~2.8–3.2K
• Adults: ~2.6–2.9K (about 70–78% of adults)
• Teens (13–17): ~230–280 (roughly 90–95% of teens use at least one platform)

Age-group penetration (share using any social media)

• 13–17: 90–95%
• 18–29: ~90%
• 30–49: ~80–85%
• 50–64: ~70–75%
• 65+: ~55–60% Note: Rates are a bit lower than national averages due to rural broadband and older age mix.

Gender breakdown (of users)

• Women: ~51–53%
• Men: ~47–49% Pattern: Women are more active on Facebook and Pinterest; men slightly more on YouTube and Reddit/Twitter(X). Overall use is similar by gender.

Most-used platforms (adults; estimated reach)

• YouTube: 70–75% of adults
• Facebook: 60–65%
• Instagram: 25–30% (higher among under-35s)
• TikTok: 20–25% (concentrated under 35; some 50–64 growth)
• Snapchat: 15–20% of adults; very high among teens (60–75%)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (mostly women 25–64)
• WhatsApp: 12–18% (family groups; some cross-border use with MI/elsewhere)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (small professional base)
• Twitter/X: 12–15% (news, sports, weather)
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: <10% (low density limits utility)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first on Facebook: Heavy use of local groups/pages for county updates, road conditions, school closings, high school sports, church and civic events, fundraisers, lost-and-found, and buy/sell/trade. Facebook Marketplace is a key local commerce channel.
• Outdoors and seasonal content: Trail and lake reports (snowmobile, ATV, fishing/ice fishing), hunting seasons, cabin life, DIY/repairs; these perform well on Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram.
• Information utility: Sheriff’s office and emergency alerts, severe weather tracking (often via Facebook/X), power outages, and winter storm updates see high engagement.
• Video-first habits: YouTube for how-tos, product reviews, machinery/small engine repair, and outdoor gear; short-form TikTok/Instagram Reels growth among younger adults.
• Teen patterns: Snapchat for messaging/streaks; YouTube and TikTok for entertainment; Instagram for peer/social identity.
• Access realities: Mostly mobile-first; evening and winter usage peaks. Some households rely on LTE due to patchy broadband, favoring lighter, short-form content.

Method note

• Built from Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. platform reach and age-by-age adoption, adjusted for rural residency and Florence County’s older age structure using Census/ACS proportions. Percentages are county-level estimates, not direct local measurements.