You are wrong about "should", because the word can and does describe non-emotional states ( not everything is deterministic and requires approximator like should ), but your point about good faith discussion is well taken. In fact, I think I should apologize here. There was no rational reason to be bent out of shape over this. Your argument is solid on the surface assuming what you write is taken at face value.
As a result, I took your advice and took myself away from the keyboard for a little while.
As I considered other things, I realized that you are still not correct despite being instinctively right about the business in general ( it goes where the money is ). You used the example of telegraph and I realized that what is wrong with the argument. Papyrus is older than telegraph and yet it is still used to deliver important messages ( like, say, warrants, summons, complaints ) suggesting it is not a question of age, but of utility. I posit that phone is in the same category as paper, because despite existence of email, telegram, signal, video chats, it has replaced telegraph, but nothing replaced phone yet in terms of barebones connectivity standard(s) that can be used across the globe. Unless we consider mobile phones a different animal, which would not be an unreasonable argument to make.
At end the end of the day, if I need to make a call to the old country and various apps don't work for one reason or another ( not everyone uses - or even can or wants to use - w/e app you use or maybe version is off or multiple other reasons ), calling is the way to go.
<< That doesn't mean there won't be some best effort attempts to support customers on the fringes,
I might accept calling is not default, but calling it a fringe might be mischaracterizing things a tad bit ( unless you have some evidence to prove, calls are indeed a fringe channel ).