AT&T is asking the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to drop its obligation to offer traditional landline phone access to all residents and businesses in its service area. While the copper-based network has dwindled in use, many rural regions still lack broadband access and cell coverage is spotty. Communities are worried about losing the last line of communication during wildfires, earthquakes and the state’s many other natural disasters, and for maintaining agricultural operations during routine power outages.
AT&T’s request comes as rural regions already feel left behind as insurance companies drop coverage, PG&E struggles to keep up with electrical demand and CPUC cuts incentives for on-farm solar.
Nearly three decades ago the state designated AT&T a carrier of last resort (COLR), requiring the company to provide phone service to anyone in its service area who requests it. The telecommunications company wants CPUC to remove the safety net obligation so it can redirect those resources to accelerating the transition to broadband.
In its application to the commission, AT&T describes the phone service guarantee as unfair, since its major competitors have no COLR obligations, and wasteful because it requires AT&T to maintain duplicative networks. It argues that the “antiquated” legacy lines cover “an ever-dwindling base of subscribers,” with demand plunging 89% over the last two decades. Instead, it is investing “enormous sums” into high-capacity, state-of-the-art broadband technologies and California has hit a “critical inflection point” with new federal infrastructure funding.
“That program will succeed in California only if the commission promotes regulatory conditions conducive to further investment and innovation in broadband technologies,” the company asserts.
AT&T estimates that less than 5% of households in its territory have landlines and that it spends more than $1 billion annually on maintaining those lines. Yet it vows to continue services for the few customers who lack an adequate alternative to a traditional landline.
Kalyn Dean, CSACThat promise, however, has provided little assurance to rural residents and interest groups.
The Public Advocates Office, an independent organization within the CPUC that represents ratepayers, is opposing the request. It points out that such a decision would impact nearly 30 million Californians and leave more than 500,000 traditional landline customers with no guarantee of service. In comments to the CPUC, the office asserts that the action would hurt the most vulnerable populations most, particularly low-income and disabled customers.
CPUC estimates the cost for customers shifting to bundled or internet service would add as much as $25 per month onto their bills.
Rural County Representatives of California stands in opposition as well. The association worries that rural and remote areas would be disproportionately impacted and at greater risk during emergencies.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
At a hearing last month, Kalyn Dean, a legislative advocate for the California State Association of Counties, asked the commission to reject the proposal since it does not prioritize the interests of consumers.
“It is essential to require AT&T to uphold their obligations to ensure that all Californians, regardless of where they live, continue to have access to reliable and affordable telecommunication services,” said Dean.
Kern County also objects to the relief from the COLR obligation over concerns for rural residents. Thomas Brown, the county’s chief intergovernmental and legislative affairs officer, explained that it would impact about 55 communities in the county.
“Many of our rural customers have few market options when choosing quality, affordable telecommunication services to suit their unique needs,” testified Brown. “Landlines are the most reliable communications tool in the safety net arsenal.”
Ventura County worried about wildfire implications. Pointing to the 2017 Thomas Fire, County Supervisor Janice Parvin explained that large parts of the county are at high risk for catastrophic wildfires.
“Allowing AT&T to abandon its role as carrier of last resort and withdraw its eligible telecommunications carrier designation would disregard the well-being and safety of the residents who rely upon these services,” said Parvin.
CPUC has received more than 8,000 comments on the proposal.
Chris Bourke, who recently completed a 16-year stint on the Soledad city council, noted that the small farming community in the Salinas Valley has lost power when a car accident takes out a power pole and during a recent three-day stretch following a windstorm. And the San Andreas Fault lies beneath the city, threatening much worse. He worried about maintaining communication with residents using internet-based phone services during such outages.
Virginia Muradian explained that her small family farm in Kingsburg depends on a landline to maintain operations. Similarly, Tony Thacher, who runs a farm in Los Padres National Forest, noted that landline services are the only means of communication with customers, suppliers and emergency services when the road is closed by debris flows and during power outages.
Despite the broad opposition, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce supports AT&T’s request. Jackson Nutt-Beers, the chamber’s public policy program manager, said the move would foster innovation and economic growth for all Californians.
“By empowering businesses and communities, this initiative will project California towards a brighter, more connected future,” said Nutt-Beers.
If CPUC plans to approve the application, the Public Advocates Office urges it to require AT&T to first fix all chronic service quality issues and to provide a migration plan for customers transitioning to a new provider.
CPUC continues to take public comment and will announce the next steps in the process after April 30, with a decision expected in the fall.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
