Bill would relax AT&T landline obligations in San Mateo County

Currently, AT&T must operate the landline network under what’s known as a carrier of last resort obligation, which stipulates that at least one telephone company must provide landline telephone service to residents in a particular location, and because of its historically monopolistic status, the firm is considered the default provider. Competitors, such as Comcast, are not required to do so, which AT&T said was understandable 40 years ago but “makes no sense today given today’s robust competition from a wide variety of providers,” according to a letter it wrote the PUC asking for removal of its last resort obligation. It has stated the upkeep of such landlines, coupled with their plummeting use, places an unfair financial burden on the company, also inhibiting its ability to invest in better infrastructure, such as fiber optics, in rural areas.

A judge rejected AT&T’s bid to remove its carrier of last resort duties last month, a decision the CPUC is expected to solidify during its upcoming June 20 meeting. If successful, the bill would allow the company to absolve itself of the COLR status as long as certain information is provided, such as the census blocks where there is either no population or in urban areas where “two or more different service providers offer alternative voice services to customers.”

San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, whose district includes rural coastline partially reliant on landline service, has been vocal about his opposition to AT&T’s efforts, stating the company is trying to shirk its carrier of last resort responsibilities without ensuring there are reliable alternatives in the event of a power outage or even medical emergencies. He added the bill undermines CPUC authority and doesn’t allow for substantial fact-checking and review of materials.

“On the eve of their petition being denied at the CPUC, legislation’s been brought forward to remove CPUC regulatory authority and change the venue of the decision to the state Legislature, [when] AT&T has spent over $2.6 million in campaign contributions over the last two-year cycle [in state elections],” Mueller said. “It’s disgraceful, and our county’s most vulnerable residents deserve the protections afforded by the procedural process and safeguards put in place by the CPUC.”

The bill may also become a wedge issue in the District 16 congressional race between candidates Sam Liccardo, former San Jose mayor, and Assemblymember Evan Low, D-Cupertino. Liccardo recently called on Low to oppose AB 2797, especially in light of Low’s 2016 bill allowing AT&T to eventually phase out its landline network.

“Landlines are a lifeline for 2.4 million Californians … so we should do a very careful evaluation of all options before anyone considers relieving the telecom industry of their obligations,” Liccardo said. “My hope would be that [Low] reconsiders his prior position in supporting the industry’s desire to relieve itself of its obligations to the public.”

Low said via email that any legislation changing COLR obligations or allowing utilities to end landline service “must contain exceptions or solutions to protect life for Californians living in areas that do not have reliable cellular service and communities vulnerable to natural disasters.”

The bill currently remains in the state Assembly and awaits hearing.