AT&T Forced to Maintain Landline Service Fights California Law

AT&T's Push to Phase Out Landlines Sparks Debate in California Legislature

Telecommunications giant AT&T, which faced regulatory pushback last year when it tried to discontinue landline service for California customers, is now advancing its case in the state legislature. The company’s efforts have found more favorable reception in the legislative body than with regulators, as Assembly Bill 470 moves forward.

The bill would allow AT&T, which provides the majority of landline service in the state, to phase out most of its landline customers, including nearly all of the hundreds of thousands in the Bay Area and millions across California. It passed a floor vote in the Assembly in late June and is now under consideration by the state Senate’s appropriations committee.

Cynthia Larson, a 63-year-old resident of Berkeley hills and author who does not own a cell phone, has voiced concerns about the potential loss of landline service. “To me the landline is irreplaceable,” she said. She worries that during natural disasters like fires or floods, internet and cell services could be disrupted, leaving her unable to access critical information. “Do I need to evacuate the house right now? Is the fire coming here right now? The landline is the standard for reliable communications. How many people is it OK to kill through this lunacy?” she asked.

AT&T has long been considered the “carrier of last resort” (COLR) in California due to its historical monopoly and state law requiring voice communication for all who want it. However, the bill aims to replace aging copper-wire landlines with phone service from cellular and cable providers. In exchange, AT&T would be required to significantly expand fiber-based internet and phone service, with half of the expansion focused on areas with poor service.

Southern California Assembly Member Tina McKinnor, the bill’s author, noted that only 5% of Californians still use copper lines, mostly older individuals. “When we no longer have them with us, like my parents, we probably won’t be 5%. We have to build up our infrastructure. There’s no mandate making any other company build the fiber,” she said.

Last year, the California Public Utilities Commission rejected AT&T’s proposal to stop landline service for much of the Bay Area and California, citing concerns about cutting off older and rural residents from essential communication during emergencies. AT&T, which reported $12.3 billion in profit last year, claims its COLR status costs it $1 billion annually. The company is now relying on AB 470 to move away from landlines.

Regina Costa, telecom policy director at The Utility Reform Network, called AB 470 an “end run around the PUC.” AT&T’s president for California, Susan Santana, stated that “no customer will be left without access to voice or 911 service” if the bill passes. The company plans to transition to new technologies in a “phased, multi-year approach,” ensuring that current copper services are maintained until alternatives are equally reliable.

Support for AB 470 includes business and community groups, as well as public officials like San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan. However, some lawmakers remain skeptical. South Bay Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens praised the bill for improving public safety through infrastructure investments, while Assembly Member Gail Pellerin, whose district includes forested areas reliant on landlines, chose not to vote on the bill. She expressed concerns about the real-world applicability of the legislation.

If AB 470 passes, the California Public Utilities Commission will have to create a map designating well-served areas by December 2026. Critics argue that federal maps used for this purpose may show broadband presence but fail to reflect the reality of unreliable service in many regions. Additionally, backup power requirements for alternative services apply only to fire-risk areas, leaving gaps in coverage during other disasters.

A recent report to the state Senate highlighted concerns that customers in well-served areas might face higher costs from alternative providers once AT&T exits. The report warned that there are no limits on rate increases after the company relinquishes its COLR duties.

Critics like Costa argue that the commission lacks the resources to verify whether alternative services are available in all areas. “There is no way that people will understand what’s going on,” she said, “and there’s no way that the commission has the resources to go out and verify throughout the entire state where there are verified alternative services.”