Reject AT&T bid to shed its landlines

About 30 years ago, American Telephone and Telegraph ended its telegraph services. Now AT&T is taking aim at “plain old telephone service.”

The Dallas-based telecom giant has applied to the California Public Utilities Commission to be released as the state's “carrier of last resort,” a designation the company has held since 1996 requiring it to provide landline telephone service.

From a business perspective, the request makes sense. Current demand for landline services is very small — less than 5% of households in AT&T's California territory have landlines, according to the company.

And AT&T says it spends more than $1 billion a year to maintain landlines in the state.

Meanwhile, cellphones, along with broadband and fiber-optic cables, dominate the telecom industry, and demand for these technologies will only grow.

The company says the money it spends on landlines could be used to strengthen more-advanced alternatives. And that 20 other states already have relieved the company of its carrier-of-last-resort status.

But here in California, with floods, fires, earthquakes and rolling blackouts, our relationship with landlines is more complex. Those copper wires are emergency lifelines when the power goes out. And given the distressing frequency of various natural and human-made disasters, approval of AT&T's proposal should hinge on the availability of equally reliable ways to call for help.

Unfortunately, those comparable options don't exist — yet. Currently, most California households get their voice services not as standalone landlines but as part of packages offered by broadband and mobile wireless companies.

But, according to the state PUC's Public Advocate's Office, none of these technologies offer the same reach and reliability in an emergency as the humble landline.

Until they do, the PUC should not relieve AT&T of its carrier-of-last-resort responsibilities.

It is true that landlines' popularity has tanked in the past two decades as consumers flocked to broadband and wireless. Between 2000 and 2021, landline demand plummeted 89%, according to AT&T. But for the elderly, rural populations and those in vulnerable areas, legacy copper-wire telephone service is the only dependable means to call for help when power fails or disaster strikes.

For example, during the horrific Camp Fire in 2018, thousands of critical cellphone messages were missed, delayed or lost, hampering officials' efforts to warn residents, while messages on landlines were more likely to reach them.

AT&T says the company cannot force current customers to give up their landlines, yet its PUC application only guarantees service for six months.

What then?

The company says the agency's approval is only the beginning of a multistep process to help landline customers move to more advanced options, requiring more government approvals ahead.

But the devil is in the details, and after months of AT&T's startling letters to its California landline customers about the company's proposed actions, resident complaints are flowing in and officials are taking notice. Local governments, including Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, are requesting more information from AT&T. Bay Area members of Congress have launched opposition to AT&T's plan and the PUC has set two virtual hearings for March 19 before making a decision, likely this fall.

Meanwhile, uneven access to broadband services throughout the state could hamper the transfer of landline customers to more advanced voice technology. California still is struggling to bring broadband to rural regions and low-income urban neighborhoods, years after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation to bridge the digital divide.

In its application, AT&T points to a federal program to ensure broadband equity, which it says is in a “decisive phase” as reason for a speedy approval.

But the deployment of billions in both state and federal dollars to expand highspeed internet in California remains controversial, with allegations that the process disproportionately reduces funding for urban areas in favor of wealthier suburbs.

Despite these issues, advanced voice services are available to most Californians. AT&T says fewer than 500 copper-based voice lines are in service in the Bay Area without an alternative.

But it's not clear that the alternatives are comparable. In the event of a power outage and/or natural disaster, will they make people safer?

Here the efforts of carriers such as AT&T are critical, and yet the industry's track record in emergency-proofing its alternatives to landlines is less than reassuring. The Federal Communications Commission's past efforts to make wireless carriers install eight hours of backup power at all cell sites and 24 hours of backup power at all central switching facilities failed in court on procedural grounds after the carriers sued.

So again, we're not there yet.

When AT&T can commit to a detailed plan investing in its landline alternatives that can hold up in fires, earthquakes, power outages and any of the myriad other disasters that California is unfortunately prone to, then the state should consider releasing the company from its “carrier of last resort” obligations.

For no state should saddle companies with onerous, unneeded regulations that have clearly reached the end of their lifespan. But prematurely releasing AT&T would give the company little incentive to disaster-proof its networks.

And in a state that lives on the precipice of the next disaster, leaving a segment of the population without a way to call for help in an emergency is too great a risk.

AT&T is wrong when it refers to “plain old telephone service” as obsolete. When the lights go out and the cellphones go dark, that click and dial tone are often the last resort.

Until there's an equally accessible and reliable alternative to copper wires, the PUC should protect our access to them.