Seeking to override state authorities and cut landline service across California, utility giant AT&T filed a federal court complaint Wednesday against California regulators and submitted two petitions to the Federal Communications Commission, the latest volley in its years-long battle to withdraw the service.<\/p>\n
Susan Santana, AT&T\u2019s vice president of legislative affairs in California, said the company had been working with the state\u2019s policymakers and legislators for years to stop providing landline service, \u201cunfortunately to no avail.\u201d Consumer advocates and others say landlines are key in disasters or in areas with poor cellular reception.<\/p>\n
Landline disconnections could start as early as June 1, 2027, AT&T said.<\/p>\n
The complaint against California\u2019s Public Utilities Commission and the state Attorney General\u2019s office asks for a federal court order to declare the state cannot stop AT&T from scuttling landlines. Neither the commission nor the Attorney General\u2019s office responded immediately to questions about the legal action.<\/p>\n
Thanks to its earlier monopoly status and California law requiring voice communications for all who want them, AT&T is, for large areas of the state, the \u201ccarrier of last resort\u201d \u2014 the utility required to provide phone service to anyone in its service area.<\/p>\n
The utility\u2019s lengthy battle to end its landline business raised concerns that during earthquakes, fires, floods and storms, landline customers could be cut off when seeking help, because cell phone infrastructure and internet service are more vulnerable to damage or disruption by power outages.<\/p>\n
In an extreme-wildfire-risk zone of the Berkeley Hills, author Cynthia Larson has had an AT&T landline for decades. She said she doesn\u2019t trust broadband or cellular networks to work if there is a disaster, and she doesn\u2019t want AT&T to \u201cwiggle out\u201d of providing landline service.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt just seems like all they care about is their bottom line and they don\u2019t care about people\u2019s lives or safety, and this is at a time when we\u2019re seeing so many weather-related disasters across the United States,\u201d said Larson, 64.<\/p>\n
Silicon Valley Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna noted Wednesday that many seniors rely on landlines. \u201cAT&T should be required to offer it as an option,\u201d Khanna said.<\/p>\n
AT&T spends about $1 billion a year in California to maintain landline service, the lawsuit said. The company, which made $23.4 billion in profit last year<\/a> according to its annual report, claimed in the lawsuit it could not invest in modernization and maintain landline service.<\/p>\n The filings follow a March order from the FCC,<\/a> allowing telecom companies to appeal to overrule states when there is a conflict between state law and federal authorization to discontinue landlines. State and local rules forcing phone companies to maintain \u201cdeteriorating legacy networks\u201d and provide \u201cnear-obsolete services\u201d conflict with federal policies and goals to modernize phone systems, the order said.<\/p>\n Santana said landline customers in remote areas without reliable broadband internet or wireless phone service would be allowed to keep their landline service, but \u201cwe\u2019re not going to be able to tell them they\u2019re going to be able to keep it forever.\u201d<\/p>\n AT&T argued in the complaint that broadband and wireless services offered by the company and its competitors \u201cwill leave no customer behind.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo one will be left without phone or 911 service, period,\u201d Santana pledged.<\/p>\n Regina Costa, telecommunications policy director for The Utility Reform Network, said AT&T cannot be trusted to determine whether a household has reliable broadband or wireless options. Many customers have been persuaded by AT&T to end their landline service, only to find that their replacement services are lacking, Costa said.<\/p>\n Costa believes AT&T\u2019s appeals to federal authorities are not a \u201cslam dunk.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cStates are in a very strong position when it comes to having the Constitutional authority to protect the interests of people in a state,\u201d Costa said.<\/p>\n Over generations, landlines \u2014 used now by just 3% of AT&T\u2019s phone customers \u2014 have become hard to repair, as parts makers disappear, while the copper wires are prone to corrosion and vulnerable to theft, Santana said.<\/p>\n The complaint said fiber and wireless services can be restored much faster than landline services.<\/p>\n Alongside its appeal to the federal government, AT&T offered a commitment to invest $19 billion in California to deliver fiber-based internet if it\u00a0is allowed to end landline service.<\/p>\n Santana acknowledged that \u201cthere will be incidents where grandma doesn\u2019t want to give up her landline phone.\u201d She presented the company\u2019s solution: a white box connected to a broadband network or AT&T\u2019s wireless service that a landline can plug into. The \u201cAT&T Phone \u2013 Advanced\u201d device features an antenna that can allow calls to go through even when cell connectivity is less than robust, and it has a battery backup, Santana said.<\/p>\n \u201cGrandma gets to keep her same telephone number, and it comes with a 24-hour power backup, which is critical when there\u2019s a power shutoff,\u201d Santana said.<\/p>\n Fees for the Advanced service are about\u00a0$45 a month, while typical landline service costs $80, Santana said. The device helps emergency providers pinpoint a user\u2019s location if they need help.<\/p>\n AT&T has faced escalating resistance in recent years<\/a> as it seeks to get out of the landline business. A 2016 bill in the California Legislature that the company backed would have allowed the withdrawal, but it failed. When the utility applied to the California Public Utilities Commission in 2023 to end landline service, it triggered an outpouring of condemnation and dismay, with thousands of people voicing opposition<\/a> on the commission\u2019s website.<\/p>\n At the time, the Utility Reform Network estimated hundreds of thousands of households in the Bay Area and millions around California would lose landline service if the commission approved AT&T\u2019s proposal.<\/p>\n In 2024, Bay Area members of Congress Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee, Anna Eshoo and Mark DeSaulnier joined 11 other California U.S. representatives in telling the commission in a letter<\/a> that the proposal threatened public safety \u201cin an area plagued by earthquakes, severe storms, floods, and fires, and that has a geography that often disrupts cellular service for days, if not weeks, at a time.\u201d<\/p>\n