Landlines = Lifelines

We attended the CPUC Hearing in Ukiah on February 22nd concerning AT&T’s plan to abandon landlines and Lifeline service in California. The Supervisor’s chambers and the overflow room were packed as was the hallway.

Real people, real stories, real concerns. Two minutes per person to speak. It was obvious that the company’s plans were not popular. Many drove 3 to 5 hours to attend the meeting and express their displeasure.

Below is the letter we are sending to the CPU. We encourage you to write or E-mail soon.

Telephone 1-866-8 49-8 390 public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov

Refer to applications A.-23-03-003, and AZ.-23-03-002.

You can also contact Peter Pratt, Senior Policy Analyst. CPU Communications Division. Ask for a copy of the 23-03-003 Joint Consumer Advocates Public Participation Handout (below). 415-703-2627 or peter.pratt@cpuc.ca.gov. Worth reading.

* * *

To Whom It May Concern:

AT&T asserts that “landline technologies are obsolete,” but the continued functioning of our aged lines, our landline, refutes that claim. During recent significant storms our landline performed perfectly, giving us help for road clearance, medical and emergency services, business and social needs.

Our experience with cell phone service in  Anderson Valley is a parade of failed calls, broken voice reception and messages received three days late. As with the rest of Mendocino County, here in Anderson Valley the topography means cell  service is erratic, sporadic and essentially unreliable. AT&T has not installed broadband to much of the area, nor have they given us a completion date for same. Storms,  and other natural disasters cut power and cell . phones become useless. Landline services may be “obsolete,” but in rural, mountainous areas they work when the “new technologies” do not. Copper-based landlines are vulnerable but when maintained they are both functional and crucial.

AT&T writes that landlines are “Sapping resources that they would prefer to be expanding their state- of-the-art broadband network.” Such expansion should not be on the back of long-time paying customers, especially rural seniors. They assure the Commission that other providers “will step up to support landlines.” What evidence do they provide that another provider would want to do this when AT&T does not want to? None in the market are as large, powerful, or with the strong financial resources needed. In good. faith, would AT&T warrantee this assertion. by offering to back up the new company? What disclosures are being offered to these interested “providers”? As the hearing later revealed AT&T had already pulled a lot of resources away from landline maintenance and repair, to the detriment of customers.

These applications must be denied until a provider with strong financial resources is actually in place and can guarantee quality service and maintenance. They should also possess the ability to install new copper lines where necessary. These applications must be denied until AT&T provides their “state-of-the art” broadband networks into more of Northern California’s mountainous areas. Until they can provide the above they must be held. accountable

AT&T asserted that we landline users are “a few remaining customers.”

Of the 7 million landlines in California, 5 million of them are in Northern California. That number is not “a few.” Is AT&T obfuscating by mixing urban and rural populations, or different areas of the state? Where have they actually placed functional broadband? Is it in privileged communities with a more lucrative market and is there an equity issue?

The February 22, 2024 Ukiah CPUC Hearing gave plenty of clear information about how copper 1andlines are valued for lives as well as livelihoods.

Although not the purpose of the Ukiah Hearing, public comments and complaints provided clarity about the consequences of this self-serving corporate decision. Many of the complaints would never have been expressed if proper upgrades and maintenance had happened. One story after another validated what had been done or not done. 

Such things as 1) not maintaining equipment so that customers were led to think that the alternative cell system (AT&T state-of-the-art) was a viable alternative so they gave up their landlines, 2) refusing to install new landlines, thus contributing to serious safety issues in our area, 3) and electing to do few upgrades and proper maintenance.

The company should be required to upgrade and repair lines they apparently ignored. Frequent reports of static on lines, especially in wet weather, would disappear with new lines. Will the CPUC be asking for increased rates to subsidize repairing same for the new provider? Customers faithfully paid their monthly bills, but were cheated of service. Was public funding also involved in some way? AT&T was not up-front about their new business tactics.

During the hearing both the AT&T representative and lawyer stated that landlines “were not being taken away” and alluded to the same “possible providers” in company literature. The company must provide documented guarantees that a service provider will be on the end of “the line that is not being taken away.” We were personally told that “your landline is not being taken away.” Smoke and Mirrors! Maybe, but who will be on the other end of that line? And, the promise of a “6 week continuance” is insulting.

AT&T states that another provider “can provide” service. That language must be changed to a provider “is in place, will provide, and is capable of providing.” Otherwise, this is an uncertain and weak promise.

At the Ukiah Hearing the public was speaking the truth. A public utility should never place its profits before the people it is supposed to serve. If the “state-of-art” broadband or cell service is in such great demand then it be put in place before releasing them from these obligations.

As currently presented, please deny the request by AT&T to escape the default landline phone service provider (COLR/carrier of last resort) and/or to relinquish its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Designation.

At the very least, move their closure date to 2030 or 2035, so that they can put in adequate cell and broadband service to Mendocino County.

Sacrificing people for profits is not something the CPUC should honor or facilitate. Please protect the vulnerable public. This is an equity issue, especially for seniors, as well as being one that can be life threatening.

PS. AT&T quotes from application…

Application A.23-03-003: Joint Consumer Advocates Public Participation Hearing Handout

What is this proceeding about?

• At least one telephone company in your area is legally required to provide access to phone Service to anyone in its service territory who requests it. This is known as the Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligation which ensures that everyone in California has access to reliable phone service. AT&T is the designated COLR in your area.

• AT&T is asking the CPUC to allow it to decide whether you can get AT&T telephone service, even if there is no other telephone provider in your area who is obligated to provide service.

• AT&T is asking the CPUC to change the rules and remove the safety net that guarantees access to affordable, quality phone service.

How could this affect me and my community?

If the CPUC grants AT&T’s request:

• AT&T could decide to not provide service to you as soon as six months after the application is granted.

• You could be required to pay more for telephone service, receive lower quality service, buy phone service as part of an expensive “bundle,” or depend on cell service (which is not reliable or available in some areas.

• If you live in a Mountain Community you may not be able to maintain a landline as emergency backup for when there are outages due to cell phone network being damaged or destroyed by winter storms, wildfires, or other severe weather events.

• If you are a Lifeline customer or Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications (DDTP) customer, you may not be able to obtain those services. As a COLR, AT&T is legally required to provide low-cost telephone service to low-income households through the LifeLine program.

• If you have special medical equipment or other technology (such as a fire alarm or security system), it may no longer function.

What can I do about it?

Join a Public Participation Hearing and share with CPUC leadership how you and your community rely on and benefit from your telephone service, especially if you subscribe to Lifeline or DDTP services.

(*The Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT), the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), and the Tahoe Energy Ratepayers Group (Tahoe ERG).