AT&T Loses Key Ruling In Bid To Stop Offering Basic Phone Service In California
- Reference: 0184542538
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/21/0617230/att-loses-key-ruling-in-bid-to-stop-offering-basic-phone-service-in-california
- Source link:
> To win a preliminary injunction, AT&T had to show it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that California rules are preempted by a Federal Communications Commission order. US District Judge Linda Lopez denied AT&T's request for a preliminary injunction during a motion hearing on Thursday, according to a [3]docket entry . The case is in US District Court for the Southern District of California. [...] AT&T could appeal Lopez's ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and could appeal later if it loses the underlying case. But since it has not obtained the injunction it asked for, AT&T for now remains under California's orders to keep offering phone service to potential customers while the case continues.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/05/22/0129209/att-sues-california-in-bid-to-stop-offering-traditional-phone-service
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/att-loses-key-ruling-in-bid-to-stop-offering-basic-phone-service-in-california/
[3] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73371958/pacific-bell-telephone-company-v-reynolds/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-46
Re: (Score:2)
My land line comes through the ISP fiber so when the power goes out everything stops. The cell tower has a backup generator to keep the service going for a while longer than the internet service.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like if they're going to route fiber anyway, which is relatively difficult to route, adding some cheap copper cabling to it that powers the relatively low power digital modem + POTS convertor (ATA/FXS) from a central battery-backed up unit wouldn't be that expensive - save for the fact they haven't bothered to do it yet so retrofitting it would be more expensive (but wouldn't be necessary for that handful that they're desperately wanting to move to fiber.)
They have the infrastructure, the pipes to ro
Re: (Score:2)
> My land line comes through the ISP fiber so when the power goes out everything stops. The cell tower has a backup generator to keep the service going for a while longer than the internet service.
In California, if the ISP provides phone service they also have to have backup power to their equipment (usually 4-12 hours, and higher in the locations where PSP shutoffs may be expected). Of course that only helps if you also have power backup in your residence (some ISPs offer/sell a local backup battery for their modem/router, and you can always purchase and maintain your own UPS). And the other realities are that sometimes the backup power fails, and sometimes the physical wires are destroy/damaged (
Re: (Score:2)
> some ISPs offer/sell a local backup battery for their modem/router
My ISP offers failover wireless Internet service for my cable internet at a reasonable cost. I haven't adopted this yet, but I think it's pretty admirable that they do it, and it solves more than just the power loss problem.
There is a future where essentially everyone has large battery capacity at their residences and commercial facilities, and it will probably become mandatory. Sodium Ion battery tech is coming online in a big way, and it directly addresses the numerous issues that hinder endemic batte
Re: (Score:2)
... for more than half an hour.
Re: (Score:3)
> We need to require that all cell phone towers be equipped with batteries and generators so they work when the power is out.
In California there is a requirement for 72 hours of backup power at the towers.
Re: If we can't have landlines (Score:2)
Verizon doesn't meet that requirement.
My local tower, which they own, goes out after less than 36 hours
Want monopoly powers, no responsibilities. (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws are simple enough. The landline companies are given enormous public benefits, right-of-way access, monopoly access to customers, and more. They're also told as a responsibility they must provide services to certain groups, a relatively small cost in comparison to the tremendous benefits.
They're might quick to back out of the responsibilities when it has a tiny cost.
It would be interesting if the state were to counter-offer, yes they can cut off the few thousand customers, in exchange for being charged for every square inch of that is currently a free or low-cost easement for their cables, wires, boxes, conduits, poles, and towers, plus the adjacent ground cleared for them. And bills for billions of dollars in property repairs and damages done in the process, and an escrow account with funds to remove all the lines, conduits, poles, and towers when that eventual day comes.
Re: (Score:3)
The situation isn't simple though.
The telcos also promised to bring last mile internet to the same POTS customers they are trying to abandon now. Remember Pacific Bell? They claimed they would have "lightspeed DSL" provided to ALL CUSTOMERS BY THE YEAR 2000. They took billions in taxpayer funds for this purpose and it never happened.
Then SBC bought them and took tens of billions more and it still never happened.
Then ATT bought them and took HUNDREDS of billions more and it STILL never happened.
> It would be interesting if the state were to counter-offer, yes they can cut off the few thousand customers, in exchange for being charged for every square inch of that is currently a free or low-cost easement for their cables, wires, boxes, conduits, poles, and towers, plus the adjacent ground cleared for them.
There's no wa
Re: (Score:2)
> Then ATT bought them
SBC bought AT&T. SBC's reputation was so bad that renaming themselves AT&T was a step up.
The video is increasingly hard to find online, but this Colbert Report video from 2007 gives the best recap of the history: [1]https://www.facebook.com/watch... [facebook.com]
[1] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1456344057725336
Copper wire service ... (Score:2)
... is copper wire service. Even if it comes from a cabinet down the street fed from fiber. It sounds like what AT&T wants is to retire POTS and switch customers from basic $9.99/mo service to a $99.99/mo plan over FTTH or wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want to mess around with wires. They want to sell you cellular service.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds a good reason to require they break out their landline and wireless assets into separate companies then, if there's such a clear conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
5G. In the woods. Good luck with that.
You're probably right about selling the cellular option. AT&T has been buying up bandwidth like the Hunt brothers bought silver. And nobody is buying (well, not enough to pay). Hence, the MVNOs have been going nuts reselling service at cut-rate prices. They need more customers.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's been on VOIP for around 8 years now, what's wrong with that?
This is VOIP over cable, cable which was originally laid down for cable TV.
My internet plan is good for 300Mb (I could get 1Gb if I needed it). Most of the time it will actually give me 350, but occasionally something goes wrong and it drops to single digit speeds. It costs me in the region of $60 monthly including 5G mobile.
Re: (Score:2)
> As someone who's been on VOIP for around 8 years now, what's wrong with that?
I am not arguing for or against AT&T. That said, in the majority of the locations AT&T wants to discontinue POTS service, there is no internet available. ATT would need to run fiber at great expense to bring internet to these homes.
Re: (Score:2)
> It sounds like what AT&T wants is to retire POTS and switch customers from basic $9.99/mo service
Where is that $9.99/mo wireline service offered? Last I looked, wireline service started at $50/mo (and usually ended up after fees, taxes, and additional services quite a bit higher). Lifeline discounts can reduce the prices somewhat, but lifeline discounts can be applied to many different communication services (including mobile).
Meanwhile, in Finland... (Score:2)
Who says California is not conservative?
Finland's last landline call has been made as the Nordic country becomes the latest to retire copper-wire phones in favour of fibre.
Finland on Tuesday pulled the plug on analogue landline phone calls after almost 150 years, the latest country to push forward in a global transition towards digital infrastructure.
Estonia, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain have already made the jump as countries across the world roll out fibre optic cable that can handle both internet se
Still very rural (Score:2)
I live in the foothills of Ca. We had no other choice but POTS until Starlink came along. There are many of people up here that rely on POTS for telephone and DSL(Starlink does not like trees). Cell service is often something you need to drive down the road to get around here. They took the Fed money to bring fiber to everyone, make them finish THAT job first.
I agree that copper phone lines are obsolete, but (Score:2)
...the proper replacement is fiber
Not wireless, fiber
Years ago, I did a PBX installation for a company and talked to the ATT technician
He said that the company had decided to let the copper network rot
All major repairs were cancelled and the only repairs allowed were sloppy, "bandaid" repairs
In my semi-rural area, PGE is replacing power poles. The old ATT poles remain with their tops cut off
Most of the old ATT poles are leaning and rotting. Some of the phone cables are tied to trees
Even with no change in th
Re: (Score:1)
> ...the proper replacement is fiber
> Not wireless, fiber
Yes, and no.
In many places the cost of putting in new fiber even where the poles and other infrastructure exists is cost-prohibitive. In those places, other options including satellite, fixed-wireless, and wireless-backhaul-with-fiber-to-the-premesis should be considered.
In a few very remote areas where even satellites can't reach, the only economical answer will be "tough, when the copper fails you will be without service" because it may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in what amounts to new
Re: (Score:2)
> In many places the cost of putting in new fiber even where the poles and other infrastructure exists is cost-prohibitive.
This isn't really true anymore. Fiber used in telco can go many hundreds of miles and costs vastly less than 20 years ago. The equipment on the ends costs a tiny fraction more to go longer distances (or in some cases the exact same as short haul). The only big expense, is the manpower to drive a truck down the road and hang the fiber on those poles. Which is the part they don't want to do, and is exactly the part they agreed to do to get all the benefits of being a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
> In many places the cost of putting in new fiber even where the poles and other infrastructure exists is cost-prohibitive.
I'd love to know how low the population density is when it's not cost effective to pull fiber where there is already pre-existing infrastructure. The power cooperative in my mostly rural county in east Tennessee started a fiber buildout just before Covid hit. The original idea was a three phase plan starting in the highest density (i.e. most profitable) areas first, using that revenue to finance less dense (i.e. less profitable) areas, then taking that revenue to finance the least dense (unprofitable) are
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes, and no.
> In many places the cost of putting in new fiber even where the poles and other infrastructure exists is cost-prohibitive. I
Boo hoo. They've received 100s of billions in subsidies to string fiber and stole most of it. If they could afford to do it with copper they can afford to do it with fiber. That's what all those universal access fees they get to tack onto everyone's bill is supposed to buy us. Urban areas are supposed to be subsidizing access for rural customers.
Satellite and cell phone backhaul (Score:1)
In the short term - like maybe for 10-15 years - allow AT&T to use satellite and terrestrial radio technologies as the backhaul for copper-to-your-house and bill you the "normal" land-line rates. In rural areas this might be nothing more than a satellite- or cell-to-copper conversion box sitting outside your house.
Sure, they will lose money (possibly hundreds of dollars per year) on every customer but it's far cheaper than maintaining a copper plant in hard-to-reach areas.
Eventually though the regulato
Re: Satellite and cell phone backhaul (Score:2)
There is a feasible solution.
Make them continue to provide the service if they want to operate.
If they don't, terminate their licenses and require them to sell to someone who will do it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Eventually though the regulators will have to tell customers "sorry" to regulated-low-cost service in expensive-to-serve area
This is it. Traditionally, a lot of regulation has been tied to POTS (the copper wire type). They want out from under that. The replacements may, or may not be*, more expensive from a capital/maintenance cost. But the revenues will be open ended.
*Watch what the telcos did in some of our rural areas. They said, "Sorry. No service available out there." Then the local rural electric cop-ops started handing their lineman a spool of fiber-optic cable when they went out to climb poles. And the telecoms went abso
From a customer (Score:1)
Just for more background for those asking who still has this. We still have a child in the house not old enough for a cell phone. We want to have a reliable 911 option available in the event of a power outage. Cost is around $100 / month. It is a billing nightmare because that account is not connected to any other AT&T account. Can take several hours to find someone who knows how to find that service if you have questions or need to make changes. AT&T has been trying to get us off the service for
Re: (Score:1)
Have you considered cell service with an analog-phone-to-cell-phone adapter? That will give your kid a phone he can call in or out on along with reliable 911. If long power outages are a problem, keep the phone on a charger 24/7 that's plugged into a UPS with enough juice for several days.
Even simpler: a "kiddie cell phone" that can only talk to parent-approved numbers plus 911.
If you have land-line-cable-TV available, you should be able to get a cable-tv-analog-telephone-adapter that has a several-hour b
It's not about dropping copper (Score:2)
This is not so much about dropping copper service as it is about dropping service. AT&T (or their predecessor) put in the copper and now they just want to drop those customers because they are expensive to maintain. I can't say I blame them - I would want to, too. The thing is they don't want to replace the copper with anything - they just want to ignore those folks.
The state would be more than happy if AT&T put in fiber and dropped copper. After all, they've secured tens of millions in Californ
Re: (Score:2)
California could respond by making it easier to deploy municipal wireless in those areas where AT&T pulls out, either they'll change thier tune or spend gobs of money fighting the municipal wireless expansion as that eats into their wireless business.
Federal preemption or sell off all assets in CA (Score:2)
They'll try Federal Preemption next. If that fails, they'll consider pulling a "Frontier" and leave California
just becase... (Score:3)
If I lived in California, I'd be tempted to get a physical, copper landline to be one of those remaining 200,000, just to piss AT&T off.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the country and several of my neighbors have copper POTS service, pretty much for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I finally dropped service a couple of years ago because the service had crept up to something like $70 a month for a basic landline phone with Caller ID. I kind of feel like they're laughing all the way to the bank either way.