Rusk County

Rusk County, Wisconsin — key demographics

Population size

• 14,188 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: 47.6 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: 20–21%
• 18 to 64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~22%

Gender

• Male: ~50.5%
• Female: ~49.5% (ACS 2019–2023)

Racial/ethnic composition (share of total population)

• White alone: ~93.0%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1.4%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.4%
• Asian alone: ~0.3%
• Some other race alone: ~0.2%
• Two or more races: ~4.7%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2.5% (ACS 2019–2023)

Households

• Total households: ~6,100
• Average household size: ~2.23
• Family households: ~58% of households
• Average family size: ~2.8 (ACS 2019–2023)

Insights

• Older-than-average age profile with about one in five residents 65+.
• Small household sizes and a majority of households are families, predominantly married-couple.
• Racial/ethnic composition is overwhelmingly White with limited diversity.

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

Rusk County, WI email usage (est. 2025)

• Population and density: ~14,100 residents across ~910 sq mi; ~15 people per sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ~8,100 residents use email (≈58% of total population; ≈74% of adults), derived from rural internet adoption rates and near‑universal email use among internet users.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: 5%
  • 18–34: 28%
  • 35–54: 35%
  • 55–64: 17%
  • 65+: 15%
• Gender split among users: roughly even (≈50% women, ≈50% men).
• Digital access trends:
  • ≈77% of households have fixed broadband; ≈16% are smartphone‑only internet; ≈7% have no home internet.
  • Email engagement is highest among 35–64; 65+ adoption trails mid‑age adults by ~10–15 percentage points but is rising as more seniors adopt smartphones.
  • About one in six households relies primarily on mobile data, driving shorter, more frequent email checks.
• Connectivity and local context:
  • Low population density and long last‑mile runs constrain fiber build‑outs; fiber is concentrated in and around Ladysmith and along main corridors, with DSL and fixed‑wireless more common in outlying townships.
  • Public libraries and schools provide key Wi‑Fi access for residents lacking reliable home service.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Rusk County, Wisconsin

Scope and approach

• Figures below are 2024 model-based estimates that combine the county’s latest Census/ACS 5‑year demographic structure with Midwest smartphone adoption benchmarks (Pew Research) and statewide ACS S2801 patterns for “cellular data plan” and “cellular-only” households. They are designed to be decision-grade for planning and market sizing, and to highlight divergences from Wisconsin overall.

User estimates

• Population baseline: approximately 14,100 residents; about 11,700 adults (18+)
• Unique mobile phone users: 11,000–11,800 residents (78–84% of total; 88–93% of adults)
• Smartphone users: 9,800–10,600 residents (70–75% of total; 86–91% of adults)
• Active mobile lines/SIMs: 14,000–17,000 (about 1.3–1.5 lines per adult user, reflecting wearables, hotspots, and work lines)
• Prepaid share of lines: 25–30% in Rusk County versus roughly 18–22% statewide (rural cost sensitivity and credit constraints lift prepaid locally)
• Household dependence on cellular for home internet:
  • Cellular-only households: 12–16% of households locally versus about 8–9% statewide
  • Households with any cellular data plan (as part of home internet mix): 70–78% locally, near but slightly below the statewide share due to gaps in signal quality outside towns

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns and estimated counts)

• By age
  • 18–34: 2,400–2,600 smartphone users; adoption is near-saturation (95–98%), similar to state
  • 35–64: 4,900–5,300 smartphone users; adoption high (92–95%), slightly below state
  • 65+: 2,100–2,400 smartphone users; adoption 68–75%, 10–15 points below statewide averages for seniors
• By income
  • Under 200% of federal poverty level: materially higher reliance on prepaid and cellular-only home internet; mobile is the primary broadband on many farms and in low-density tracts
• By education
  • Households without a bachelor’s degree show higher prepaid incidence and lower 5G device penetration versus state, reinforcing the prepaid and cellular-only skew
• By geography
  • Ladysmith and corridors along US‑8/WI‑27/WI‑40 show the strongest device and 5G penetration; forested and river-valley areas exhibit weaker indoor coverage and higher LTE fallback

Digital infrastructure points

• Carrier footprint
  • All three national networks (AT&T/FirstNet, Verizon, T‑Mobile) operate countywide with primary LTE coverage; low‑band 5G is present along major corridors and in/near Ladysmith
  • Mid‑band 5G (C‑band/n41) availability is limited compared to Wisconsin’s urban counties; outside town centers, service frequently reverts to LTE
• Performance patterns
  • In‑town and corridor areas: generally adequate for HD streaming and telehealth; outside these areas, speeds degrade and uplink can be the constraint, affecting video calls and cloud apps
  • Indoor coverage challenges are common in metal‑roofed structures and low-lying terrain, increasing reliance on Wi‑Fi calling and boosters
• Backhaul and fixed broadband interplay
  • Cable/fiber options are concentrated in and around Ladysmith; DSL, fixed wireless, and cooperative fiber cover portions of rural townships
  • Where fixed broadband is absent or slow, households substitute with unlimited or high‑cap cellular plans, driving the above‑state cellular‑only rate
• Public safety and resilience
  • FirstNet (AT&T) serves public safety; storm-related power and fiber cuts periodically affect mobile capacity and backhaul in remote sectors, causing temporary congestion and fallback to voice/SMS

How Rusk County trends differ from Wisconsin overall

• Lower senior smartphone adoption: 10–15 percentage points below the statewide senior average, keeping overall adult adoption a few points lower than the state
• Higher reliance on cellular-only home internet: about 4–7 points higher than the state, reflecting rurality and patchy fixed broadband
• Higher prepaid share: roughly 5–8 points above statewide, linked to income mix and credit preferences
• Slower 5G mid‑band buildout and more LTE fallback outside towns, creating larger urban–rural performance gaps than seen statewide
• Slightly lower device/plan ARPU: plan mix tilts toward value tiers, with more data optimization and hotspot usage

Implications and practical insights

• Design for LTE-first and offline‑tolerant experiences; assume periods of low uplink outside town centers
• Keep critical services compatible with voice/SMS and Wi‑Fi calling, not just app‑based IP messaging
• For outreach, expect better conversion with SMS and lightweight web than video-rich content in outlying areas
• Retail and support strategies benefit from in‑county or nearby in‑person options due to device setup needs and booster/Wi‑Fi calling configuration
• Network investments with the highest local payoff: mid‑band 5G sectors in Ladysmith and along US‑8/WI‑27, additional macro or small cells in known LTE weak zones, and improved fiber backhaul resilience

Notes on sources and method

• Demographic baselines: U.S. Census/ACS 5‑year profile for Rusk County (population size, age mix)
• Adoption benchmarks: Pew Research Center smartphone adoption by age/income/education (Midwest) applied to local demographics
• Household internet modalities: ACS S2801 “Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions,” with rural-county adjustments based on observed urban–rural deltas in Wisconsin
• Infrastructure characterization: synthesis of carrier public coverage materials, rural deployment norms, and known corridor effects in northern Wisconsin

These figures provide a reliable planning picture: Rusk County is more mobile‑dependent than the Wisconsin average, particularly among lower‑income and rural households, with adoption gaps concentrated among seniors and a network that remains LTE‑centric outside town centers.

Rusk County, WI social media usage (2024–2025 snapshot)

Overview

• Population ≈14,000; adults (18+) ≈11,100 (ACS 2019–2023 5-year)
• Adult social media users ≈7,900 (≈71% of adults; ≈56% of total population)
• Smartphone adoption among adults ≈85%; mobile-primary social users ≈70%
• Basis: County age/gender structure from ACS weighted against Pew Research Center 2024 platform adoption by age and rurality to produce county-level estimates

Most-used platforms among adults (estimated share of adults using each; platforms are not mutually exclusive)

• YouTube: 78%
• Facebook: 70%
• Instagram: 32%
• Pinterest: 32%
• TikTok: 25%
• Snapchat: 24%
• X (Twitter): 18%
• Reddit: 15%
• LinkedIn: 14%
• Nextdoor: 8%

Age profile of active social media users (share of users)

• 18–29: ~16%
• 30–49: ~31%
• 50–64: ~31%
• 65+: ~22%

Gender breakdown of active users

• Women: ~52%
• Men: ~48%

Behavioral trends and usage patterns

• Facebook as the local hub: Heavy reliance on Groups (community, school, church), Marketplace, and event pages; strongest cross‑generational reach, especially 35+
• Video-first habits: YouTube widely used for how‑to, outdoor recreation, equipment repair, farming/rural living; growing connected‑TV viewing of YouTube
• Short‑form growth: TikTok and Instagram Reels rising for under‑35; older users more likely to encounter short‑form via Facebook Reels
• Messaging patterns: Facebook Messenger ubiquitous; Snapchat concentrated among teens and 20‑somethings for daily communication
• Content engagement: Fewer original posts per user than urban areas but high comment and share rates on hyperlocal topics; local news outlets and civic pages drive spikes
• Timing: Engagement peaks around 7–9 a.m. and 7–10 p.m.; weekend mid‑day upticks; weather and school‑sports updates reliably lift activity
• Commerce and ads: Local businesses favor boosted Facebook posts and event promotions; deal- and event‑driven creatives outperform brand‑only messaging; CPMs generally lower than metro markets
• Seasonality: Noticeable surges around hunting season, county fair, holiday events, and winter months when indoor screen time rises

Notes

• Figures are modeled estimates specific to Rusk County’s demographic mix using U.S. Census Bureau ACS (2019–2023) and Pew Research Center’s 2024 social media platform adoption by age/rural status. They reflect adult usage and are intended as decision-grade approximations for planning and outreach.