California Says AT&T Can’t Just Hang Up On Unwanted, Taxpayer Funded Copper DSL And Phone Connections

Four years years ago AT&T, a company that for years cheapened out on upgrading its broadband lines to fiber,effectively stopped selling DSL. While that's understandable given the limitations of the dated copper-based tech, the problem is that thanks to concentrated telecom monopolization, many of these customers were left without any replacement options due to a lack of competition.

There are other issues at play too. AT&T has, for decades, received countless billions intax cuts,subsidies,merger approvals, and regulatory favors (remember how killing net neutrality, broadband privacy rules, or approving a wave ofdoomed mergerswereallsupposed to unleash untold innovation, job creation, and network expansion? Yeah, AT&T doesn't either).

In many states, AT&T has managed to lobby lawmakers into removing any requirement that the company continue servicing these users, many of which are elderly folks still using traditional landlines used for 911 access. But in California those efforts aren't going too well after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) told the company it can't just hang up on these unwanted (taxpayer subsidized) connections.

AT&T had tried to argue that it shouldn't be held to the state's carrier of last resort" requirements because these users now have the option of numerous voice services and outdated copper-based landline facilities are expensive to maintain."But the PUC found there weren't replacement options available for many rural users, and nudged AT&T to upgrade its network to fiber instead of complaining:

Carrier of last resort rules are technology-neutral and do not distinguish between voice services offered... and do not prevent AT&T from retiring copper facilities or from investing in fiber or other facilities/technologies to improve its network."

AT&T is responding to the demand by shifting more lobbying resources toward changing California state law and eliminating protections for folks left in a lurch from disconnected DSL and landline connections. In most cases this is justified by insisting that wireless is good enough for these impacted users (even if reliability may be worse and wireless provider coverage maps routinely over-state coverage).

You can understand superficially why AT&T doesn't want to adhere to aging regulations governing technology it doesn't want. But those arguments, again, tend to forget AT&T has been slathered in tax breaks, regulatory favors, and subsidies for 30+ years in exchange for network upgrades that are always, quite mysteriously, left only half-deployed. It also has a history of defrauding subsidy programs.

This hasn't just been a problem with AT&T. Verizon has also routinely found itself under fire over the last fifteen years for letting aging phone and DSL networks fall into total disrepair despite billions in taxpayer subsidies. In most cases, well-lobbied lawmakers just forget telecom history and let these companies dictate all state telecom policy, making CA's brief window of accountability a rare exception.

Telecom monopolies historically want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all of the taxpayer perks and subsidies that come along with being an essential utility, but none of the obligations. And with very, very limited exceptions, state and federal corruption usually nets them the outcome they're looking for.