USA Today recently noted that there persists in this world an endangered species called the "landline." Certainly, a fair number of us still have a telephone on our workplace desk. That is true more often when the "workplace" is not the dining room. Virtual workers are less likely to have such a desk phone. Those work phones are not analog, but digital. Those are increasingly voice over internet protocol (VOIP).
But, that is reasonably recent also. I can recall when people told me we could never switch the OJCC offices to VOIP. They claimed it was simply too expensive, too novel, and too inconsistent. That mentality persisted until one day in 2020 when they told me that the "old" digital phone systems were no longer serviceable or replaceable. We would therefore be "forced" to VOIP.
In that, you see the advent of new technology, a period of doubt, a period of adjustment, a time of acquiescence, and eventually a time of dominance. Technology evolves to the latest and greatest, then eventually to the ubiquitous.
In the home, the presence of a "landline" is increasingly rare, and "if you still have" one, then you are old. Sorry to be so blunt. The USA Today notes the trend of ditching the landline is seemingly particularly prevalent among the millennials and younger.
The article does not come right out and say you are likely old if you have such a phone. But, it says those who have them are likely "old enough to remember smelly phone booths and the rotary dial." Guilty on both counts. There was a day not so long ago when we persistently kept change on hand in case we needed to make a phone call.
Pay phones "were a way of life" until the late 1990s, according to 13NewsNow. We can be dated, perhaps, by the progression of the pay phone. If you don't remember them, then you antedate the 1990s. If you remember payphones charging a quarter, then you are a bit more experienced. If you recall a call costing a dime ("into the 1980s"), older still. And, a few of us may remember when such a call cost a nickel ("into the 1950s"). Technology changes.
As a side note, those nickel phone calls persisted even into the 1970s in some small markets. So, if you remember the nickel you may be either ancient or you just got lucky.
We change also, though we are not so fast. Culture changes as well, but not uniformly. Various cities in Europe remain dotted with pay phones. There remains a culture there that somehow feeds coins and cards into such devices. There is a demand and so the product remains.
Similarly, with the landline in America, those payphones may persist through obstinate choice or market need. Who clings to the landline?
USA Today says that the landline subscribers of today are
- more likely . . . to own a home.
- more likely to live in the Northeast.
- less likely to smoke
- less fond of binge drinking
- more likely to wear seat belts
- more likely to exercise
- more likely to have health insurance
So, the landline owners are more traditional. They are predominantly responsible, health-conscious, and under the microscope. Yes, they are studied. The Centers for Disease Control have been "studying the traits of Americans who hold on to their landlines" for decades. They are a subject of curiosity, inquiry, and study.
They (you) are likely unaware they have been the subject of examination and study. The CDC did not set out to study you. They set out to persevere in a habit of health-related surveys. They had a long history of doing those with phone polls. They came to realize through that there was a shift in who could be called, and how. The results are ancillary to other health study and observations. But, the results are intriguing in their own right.
And, those who have landlines are growing extinct. In the course of the last 20 years, the population has shifted dramatically. At the beginning of this century, about "5% of Americans dared to rely entirely on cellphones." Quality improved. Costs decreased. Technology evolved. Today "76% of adults" "live in homes without landlines."
The USA Today goes on to explain perceptions of the wave that brought us here. They discuss the bravery of the early "cord-cutters," and the evolution to cell phone ubiquity. They posit questions about youth, evolution, and "risk-taking behaviors." In short, there is some suggestion that this evolution is worthy of analysis about us and our decision-making.
As I peruse the article, I think of the coming information (r)evolution. I wonder whether artificial intelligence is the next evolution, revolution, or extinction (some scientists think we are in the midst of an overall extinction). What will the new information technology bring us? Who will be the early adopters? Who will be the holdouts and naysayers? Where will the market and our world be in two decades?
The implications are numerous. The potentials are still uncertain. If one has confidence in anything, it is that there will be intended consequences of the information and computing age that is dawning. But it is just as certain that there will be unintended and unexpected results as well. There will be wonders but also horrors.
Are we all equally prepared? Are we in the "in crowd" or will we be among the holdouts? It is an exciting time. A time of evolution or worse. A time of choices, challenges, and history. Like all periods of history, it will be dreaded by some, engaged by some, and forsaken by others. Which demographic will be yours, and what will that say about you? Are you ready to be under the microscope once again?
Epilogue - if you got the punchline in the title of the post, you are a seasoned citizen also. The Wide Area Telephone Service, or WATS line was a creature of the 1960s, and later evolved into the toll-free 800 number phenomenon. That then became a broader concept as we ran out of 800 numbers, and then increasingly became a mere curiosity as the idea of "toll calls" was essentially destroyed by the now ubiquitous cell phone and calling plans. The world is changing, and the signs are all around you.