Bill to disrupt access to landlines in San Mateo County dropped

The bill was pulled from the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, effectively stopping the bill from becoming law. This bill would no longer require AT&T to be a carrier of last resort or to have any carrier of last resort obligations in, among other places, rural parts of San Mateo County. This move comes after many residents in San Mateo County and their elected officials raised significant concerns about the bill’s adverse impact on the dependability of their telephone service if their land lines were removed, according to the release. 

“Today, my constituents scored a win with the withdrawal of state legislation that would have allowed AT&T to leave them without a landline to call 911 in an emergency and communicate daily in their rural settings where there is poor or non-existent broadband,” U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, said in the release. “This was a fight worth waging and I’m proud to have done so.”

The announcement was a relief for constituents living in rural areas who have expressed significant concerns that this bill could end or disrupt telephone service or impact their ability to call 911 during an emergency, state Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, said.

“My fellow committee members and I raised serious issues with this proposal before its hearing and were pleased to see this bill pulled before we heard it. We must do everything we can to ensure that residents have access to make phone calls, especially for an emergency,” Becker said.

Assemblymember Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto, and San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller also expressed gratitude the bill was pulled.

In late June, the CPUC denied AT&T’s bid to be relieved of what is called its carrier of last resort obligations in certain areas of California, including nearly all of San Mateo County. However, Assembly Bill 2797 looked to make it easier for companies like AT&T to withdraw from these obligations without the express consent of the CPUC.

Mueller said amid dwindling pandemic aid resources and growing inflation, corporations are looking to cut expenses where they can.

“What’s happening is that our corporations are looking to go ahead and continue to expand their bottom line,” Mueller said previously. “And they’re doing it, in some cases, at the expense of the public health and safety of the residents of California and in my district.

The Board of Supervisors approved a resolution opposing the bill 4-1, with Supervisor David Canepa casting the sole nay vote.

“We’re here in Silicon Valley. I’m just worried that with this legislation it makes us look like we’re dinosaurs,” Canepa said at the board meeting Tuesday. “There are people out there who are hurting for investments in broadband.”

Mueller clarified and said the bill has no mention of broadband investments or any commitment to expanding such infrastructure. Canepa said he wants to “take authority out of the [C]PUC” and believes legislators should be the decision makers in the matter.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in March to oppose AT&T’s bid to be relieved of its carrier of last resort obligations, which they said would leave “thousands of residents, including vulnerable populations such as seniors and those with access and function needs … at risk.”

Previously, AT&T officials said no customer would be left without voice or 911 services and the company is fully committed to working with state leaders on policies that create a thoughtful transition to modern communications.