The idea that "nor does anyone really appreciate unexpected visitors." is a recent concept. When I was growing up, that is just how it worked - you knocked on a door. If they were busy or could not play, you respected that and left. If they really didn't have time for you, they just wouldn't answer the door. Obviously, you'd make plans if you didn't live near each other, but kids running around the local neighborhood pulling each other out of homes to play outside was literally an every day experience.

It is truly a difference in generations at this point. I find it disturbing and annoying to get texts and phone calls, but friendly and welcome for friends to stop by and say hello.

While there sometimes is some parental organisation by phone or text, for the most part, local kids just have to go out to see who's available, then be home by whatever time we decide to be the latest.

I realise this will not work across all locations, but out here in the boonies it works a charm.

If some kid comes by asking for my kids and they are not in, (s)he just walks to the next house or playground trying their luck. If I expect my kids back soon, I just invite the kid at the door in to wait for them.

For some reason, when this happens, they usually don't end up just doing screen stuff with their friends. No idea why. Maybe exercising to bike/walk to their friends' houses gets them in a play-outside mood?

I admit it would be trickier for more remote kids, but in that situation asking a parent to set up a play-date (or making a no-screen exception for calling friends on the phone to schedule) would likely work well.

Not impossible, but likely it'd be a purpose-bought feature phone.

Most have access to one, in the developed world.

So there's the option, but it's a service change for many. Which is an argument against your comment.

If you're taking the broader view -- outside developed countries, or to a time when POTS / PSTN are deprecated or abandoned, and I could see that happening within the next five years given recent trends, possibly not. Which is an argument for your comment.

My experience is that both landline and mobile have their own extreme annoyance and distraction factors. So be it.

Outright dismissal may be not fully appropriate and premature though.

Though again, that's households without landline service. The households still have landline access, in the sense that they're wired to the network.

The actual penetration is closer to 20% now in many regions. Staggeringly low. And again, I think PSDN as a whole -- that's mobile dialed and VOIP SIP calls, as well as POTS -- may not be long for this world. The spam / robocall issue is the tip of the iceberg. Personal and business fraud is another major element.

For median household income it would cost 1.5% of after tax income for just the landline

In ancient times, the frequently-called numbers list was pinned next to the phone.