State regulators refused AT&T’s request to end landline service. The company isn’t taking no for an answer (2025)

AT&T “will keep working with policy leaders across the state,including the CPUC,” the statement also said. “We believe the California Assembly has recognized the changing communications landscape and we appreciate their leadership to develop a policy approach that modernizes California’s communications network and protects consumers.”

Setting the guardrails

While consumer advocates, too, have proposed their own ideas for modernizing Carrier of Last Resort rules and support the expansion of other technologies, they worry the process proposed by providers could leave many, especially in rural and tribal areas, without a critical safety net.

They point out, for example, that data and tools for assessing access to and quality of service often don’t reflect the reality.

Even in populated areas like Santa Rosa with several cell service and internet options, coverage can be notoriously spotty, and WiFi can go out when power is lost. Horror stories of access lost when its most needed, during emergencies like wildfires, abound.

About 50 people showed up to the recent CPUC public hearing in Santa Rosa, many with stories of failures in cell and voice of internet service on a daily basis and during moments of crises.

“Our community cannot accept adoption of technology that might only work 90% of the time,” said John Walsh, a network and communications manager for Sonoma County. “Allowing designated providers to withdraw from or diminish their obligations without a guaranteed alternative creates an unacceptable level or risk.”

“I don't think it's an ‘or,’ I think it's an ‘and,’” said Tracy Rhine, senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California. “We would like modern technology for certain, but we need to make sure it's reliable … If you're taking away that lifeline and giving us something else, we need to make sure that something else does work.”

Guardrails to establish how basic service and reliability are defined or to ensure that providers don’t let the infrastructure degrade beyond use in the meantime, as some consumer groups and customers have alleged, could be worked out through the CPUC process. AT&T, too, called for CPUC to help lay the terms.

That will take time.

AB 470 in the legislature could move much faster, and Rhine worries that the bill leaves critical questions unaddressed. Recent amendments add details and some guardrails. But, Rhine said, as written, protective measures like discretion to determine coverage quality or thoroughly review and effectively challenge carrier withdrawals are unclear or still lacking. She flagged a 10-year off-ramp for telecommunication provider obligations.

Rural County Representatives of California is listed as opposing AB 470. That could shift, Rhine suggested, with the right changes. She said she’d also like to see one-to-one replacement with broadband for those who would lose basic service protections. For now, the bill just states that companies will provide “advanced fiber optics buildout to at least the number of residential units in the state as the number of basic exchange customers the telephone corporation had” but it doesn’t specify where or a timeline.

Rhine noted that rural areas have historically seen disinvestment because they can be hard and expensive to serve, underpinning much of the reason for Carrier of Last Resort regulations in the first place.

AB 470 recently cleared its first hurdle in the Assembly’s Committee on Communications and Conveyance on an 8-1 vote, with Assembly member Robert Garcia, who represents part of San Bernardino County, casting the no vote. Assemblymember Chris Rogers, D-Santa Rosa, declined to vote.

“I represent from Santa Rosa to Oregon and to say that we have a lack of investment in infrastructure in my area is an understatement,” he said. “They feel like they’ve been left behind, that they feel like whether it’s wired or wireless, access is difficult,” Rogers said during the April 30 committee meeting. “There are better ways to connect people, but, my community doesn’t feel like they’re going to be at the front of the line. They don’t feel like the infrastructure they currently have is adequate let alone giving opportunities for that to go away.”

“For me it’s not a ‘no,’” Rogers said, noting an appreciation for the recent amendments but a need to bring them back to the communities he represents. “It’s a ‘not right now’ until my district feels comfortable and like they’re taken care of.”

Annie Barbour, a program liaison for United Policyholders, an insurance consumer advocacy nonprofit and a 2017 Tubbs Fire survivor who helped found the wildfire recovery group, Coffey Strong, is part of a coalition supporting the bill, Californians for a Connected Future.

Californians for a Connected Future is made up of more than 100 business and community organizations, according to its website, as well as AT&T. The coalition is a project of US Telecom, a national trade association representing technology providers, including AT&T and Frontier.

Barbour said she was compelled to join the effort after attending an event in Ukiah.

“Every one should have a fair shake at getting alerts, good reception, 911 services,” Barbour said. “Instead of holding on to an antiquated system, we have the ability to offer better, and everyone deserves that.”

She added that she would probably still have her landline if her house hadn’t burned down but that her cellphone was also integral that night as she fled.

Barbour said she wasn’t well versed in the competing proceedings at the CPUC, but that practically speaking she knows “business is business” and “AT&T is probably trying to figure out how to mitigate their losses.” She also said, however, that oversight and well-defined parameters are essential, and she understood people’s concerns. “If I’m banging the drum trying to get them better service, and they get nothing out of it, then that’s not effective.”

The CPUC is holding its last two public participation hearings virtually at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. on May 13. On Tuesday, after passing out of its first committee, AB 470 was referred to the state assembly’s Committee on Appropriations for consideration.

You can reach “In Your Corner” Columnist Marisa Endicott at 707-521-5470 or marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com. On X (formerly Twitter) @InYourCornerTPD and Facebook @InYourCornerTPD.