Landline service could be in jeopardy for much of California, including Sonoma, Napa counties

About a year ago, Anthony Haas realized his landline was intermittently losing service. It was a major concern because for the roughly five decades Haas and his wife have lived on Sonoma Mountain Road between Santa Rosa and Glen Ellen, they’ve depended on the connection. Cell service is spotty, so the couple, who are older, consider their landline more of a lifeline during emergencies.

“What we depend on is that landline,” Haas said.

He’s gotten a lot of different answers but not much help when he’s reached out to his provider, AT&T, for answers. But, one thing he learned, through many conversations with a miscellany of anonymous service representatives is that, in the long run, the company expects it won’t have to provide or maintain landline service like his much longer.

That’s because AT&T has petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to release it from its obligation as a “Carrier of Last Resort” in California. The status legally requires a telecommunications company to provide basic telephone service, usually a landline connection, to anyone requesting it in a certain area to ensure safe and reliable access to all communities. While various providers hold this position in different territories, AT&T is the largest, covering large swaths of the state.

“This is not just a sad story of some poor old guy up on the mountain who doesn’t have service,” Haas said. “This is a statewide thing that AT&T is not providing the service it’s supposed to and is trying to get out of it permanently.”

After a Press Democrat reporter inquired about Haas’ situation, an AT&T representative reached out to him and was able to determine the source of the problem and said they are looking into a resolution. The company emphasized that it is not prematurely stopping the maintenance of any landlines, although Haas and others have reported hearing mixed messages from lower-level employees or contractors.

Still the company’s petition before the CPUC move is alarming to the more than half a million AT&T customers who rely on landlines, especially rural and tribal territory residents with unreliable cell and internet service.

“Please do NOT allow AT&T to walk away from their responsibility to the people in the areas that do not have suitable cell service to replace their coverage,” a Fort Bragg resident wrote in one of the more than 1,800 comments submitted to the CPUC by Friday afternoon.

“During the Sonoma County wildfires in 2017 and 2019, our landline was the ONLY means of communication we had available to us for days,” a Santa Rosa resident wrote on Feb. 2. “We don't use our landline for everyday calls, but we are happy to pay our monthly bill for the peace of mind of knowing we have this option to communicate in an emergency or during natural disasters. Please DO NOT remove our landline!”

In AT&T’s view, according to a filing with the CPUC last year, traditional landlines are “an antiquated, narrowband network with an ever-dwindling base of subscribers” given the expansion of broadband and cellular technology. “Plain Old Telephone Service,” as its known, over copper wires, provided by AT&T dropped by 89% between 2000 and 2021. The company claims that more than 99% of the population in its California territory has access to at least three alternatives — cell or internet-based voice service from its own fiber or mobile offerings or from other providers, including Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast/Xfinity and the like.

“We’ve seen a precipitous decline in demand for telephone services provided over our copper networks,” AT&T spokesperson Chris Collins said. “Our commitment is that consumers currently in our California service territory will retain access to a service connection, whether from us or another service provider.”

But plenty of Californians and advocacy groups take issue with AT&T’s characterization.

“On its face, I think generally the public will say, ‘Well, if you have an alternative, and this no longer makes sense, then what is the problem?’” said Tracy Rhine, a senior policy advocate for the Rural County Representatives of California, which represents the interests of 40 rural counties, a majority of them in Northern California. She noted, however, that access to an alternative can be defined as just 50% of a census block having wireless service, for example.

“That means that the other half may have no access whatsoever,” Rhine said. Or, “being in a rural area, even if it says you have service, you might have to go to one-quarter of your house or maybe you have to go to the top of your driveway. I think there's a lot of variables that aren't taken into consideration.”

“The reality of the matter is there’s still a significant amount of Californians where wireless coverage is nonexistent to them or is intermittent,” said Ana Maria Johnson, a program manager with the state Public Advocates Office, which is charged with representing ratepayers at the CPUC. “I don't think the question is whether (landlines) are antiquated or not, it's about how customers are receiving phone service.”

AT&T’s withdrawal would have a bigger impact than it lets on, the Public Advocates Office maintains, asserting in its own filing to the CPUC that the telecom giant serves more than half of the California customers who rely on traditional landlines.

The Carrier of Last Resort obligation was established decades ago to ensure that when a telecommunications company had a monopoly in an area they would be required to provide basic service to any and all customers there. Most states still have these requirements, though a number have allowed for changes or are considering doing so.

AT&T considers the last-resort status — and landline network it requires the company maintain — to be outdated. Without that burden, AT&T argues, it could instead dedicate more resources to strengthening and broadening the roll out of broadband and cell connectivity to more Californians.

“We are only seeking a plan for an orderly, fair transition from old copper-based networks and services that fewer and fewer customers want, to the modern, high-speed broadband networks and services that consumers demand,” AT&T's Collins said.

Broadband expansion has been a key priority at the state and federal level in recent years, with the Biden administration funneling billions of dollars into the effort.

Even with its last resort designation, AT&T has managed to invest significantly with plenty of governmental support. Between 2018 and 2022, AT&T put more than $140 billion into its wireless and fiber networks, one 2023 press release touted.

Still, “it’s reasonable to say maintaining this technology in a time where many people don't use it becomes costly and diverts resources to something that is not future-proof,” Rhine said. “I don't disagree with that. I think our disagreement is that the petition doesn't take into consideration the realities of the customers that are affected.”

Consumer advocates worry there’s not enough information on the table to understand just how broad those impacts could be. And, ultimately, this is also about implications that extend beyond landlines, according to Johnson of the Public Advocate’s Office.

“What this application is really about is AT&T asking the commission to relinquish its obligation to offer phone service,” regardless of the method, she said.

She noted that as the proposal now stands, no other provider would be required to take AT&T’s place, leading to several key questions: Could some customers eventually lose service? Will they face potentially higher prices or lesser coverage with another carrier? While AT&T insists that no customer will be left without service, how exactly will service be defined and by who? Johnson called AT&T’s answers to date “convoluted and cloudy.”

AT&T’s petition is just the first in a long series of steps before any major changes would materialize, and there are many regulatory hurdles along the way. Californians will have a number of opportunities to learn more and weigh in at upcoming CPUC public forums with AT&T and other stakeholders. The meetings will focus on AT&T’s request to relinquish its last-resort status as well as another in which the company would withdraw its designation as an “Eligible Telecommunications Carrier,” the designation for a company that receives federal funding to provide quality, low-cost telephone service to customers of all income levels in a certain area. That could mean that AT&T would not have to offer LifeLine, for example, a program that lowers the monthly cost of phone or internet service.

“It's important for the state to hear from people that are really affected because we as associations, can advocate for our areas,” said Rhine, the advocate for Rural County Representatives of California. “But hearing those real life stories I think is necessary for the (CPUC),”

“In Your Corner” is a column that puts watchdog reporting to work for the community. If you have a concern, a tip, or a hunch, you can reach “In Your Corner” Columnist Marisa Endicott at 707-521-5470 or marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com. On X (formerly Twitter) @InYourCornerTPD and Facebook @InYourCornerTPD.