AT&T and other phone companies are apparently sick and tired of having to repair landlines, especially in rural areas, when they could be instead be spending their money on lobbyists opposing rural broadband.
AB2395 is a bill in the California Assembly allowing landline operators to end their landline services in 2020 … because of course everyone everywhere is served by other technologies, like cellphones and VOIP (Voice Over IP, which relies on an underlying internet data connection).
However, in rural areas, many of these technologies are either unreliable or unavailable. And, even best case, they rely on the electrical grid. I live in rural Mendocino County, and when our power goes out, our cell service typically does also, because our cell towers aren’t equipped with generators. When a vandal cut AT&T’s fiber line near Hopland last year, most of the county lost all access to internet and cell service— even though there’s supposed to be redundant lines, paid for with taxpayer subsidy, and even though the major trunk line to Hawaii goes offshore from here. We also lost 911 services, and calls directly to the sheriff’s office were inadvertently routed to a real estate office in Benicia.
AB 2395 Could Leave Rural Communities with No Telecommunications Service
The bill would allow a telephone corporation, such as AT&T, to withdraw voice telephone service to a community after January 1, 2020. The telephone corporation would simply need to certify to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that there was one “alternative voice service available.” If there is no “alternative” available, the telephone corporation would be allowed to abandon the area after one year, with only 90 days advance notice to consumers. The bill puts off for nine years a requirement that the CPUC design a universal connectivity program. The bill does not provide for public participation in withdrawal requests.AB2395 Could Leave Many California Consumers with Higher Rates, Inferior Service, and Little, if Any, Competitive Choice
The bill has only three requirements for an “alternative provider:” voice service, 911 access, and back-‐up power information. The “alternative provider” would not have to provide Internet access, services for people with disabilities, lifeline subsidies for low-‐income households, or meet minimum standards for reliability and quality. The bill could leave many consumers and communities with no Internet access, which is the essential communications service today. Alternatively, the bill could leave many consumers and communities with only wireless Internet access, which is expensive and often unreliable.This seems in part to be a response to AT&T failing to maintain landlines properly — they were getting in trouble last year with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for taking up to 6 weeks to repair landlines in my area — and possibly SB 1250, introduced by state Senator Mike McGuire, which requires them to report 911 outages more aggressively. The current reporting threshold is fine for urban communities, but in rural communities, outages lasting weeks are not reportable events.
Failure to report 911 service outages can wreak havoc on rural communities, and put the public's safety at risk. Previous 911 [and telecommunications] outages along the North Coast have resulted in ambulances needing to be staged at busy intersections, an inability to access electronic patient medical records and court documents, debit and credit card transactions could not be processed, cancelled college classes. Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard was required to fly their entire Northern territory due to federal mandates with no knowledge of when service would be restored.
I personally choose to keep a landline because the call quality is so terrible over cell phones. Service inside my house varies from one to three bars. I can’t stand trying to have a conversation over dropped packets and abruptly disconnected calls. That’s a reason why when I do have to use my cell phone, I usually use it for texting rather than voice calls… they are just too frustrating. I certainly wouldn’t try to do ordinary business phone calls over my cell if I had any alternative — it’s one thing to be reachable that way, but to try to credibly present yourself as a reliable business partner if all you had was rural cell service would be very difficult.
There is a hearing Tuesday, April 5th (that’s tomorrow) — and your letter in opposition to this bill allowing AT&T to end landline service would go a long way.
A template letter is here:
Your Organizational Letterhead
April 5, 2016
Assemblymember Mike Gatto
Chair of the Utilities and Commerce Committee
State Capitol • Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblymember Gatto,
I am writing to let you know that my organization _________________________ that represents _________people in the __________________community has taken a position to oppose AB 2395 (Low) because we want to stop AT&T from taking away from our communities the right to choose traditional home phone service many of value enough to keep.
Many of us choose to keep our copper-based home phones even if we own mobile phones:
Don’t take away the most reliable way to reach 911 in an emergency. 911 dispatch centers automatically know our location when we call from home. Our home phone lines will keep working for weeks if there is a power outage. Wireless signals can be unreliable when we need our phones the most. Don’t let vulnerable people be left without reliable phone service. A third of low–income LifeLine households choose copper-based home phones. Many seniors without broadband depend on old-fashioned home phones. People who are disabled or medically fragile often need landlines for med-alerts. Don’t let AT&T force people to use more expensive mobile and digital services. Many people choose landlines because the bills are more affordable. Others choose landlines because of reliability, especially in rural communities. It can make it harder to reach small businesses that have no landlines.People in my community care about reaching 911 in an emergency, the right to choose their own phone service that is reliable and affordable, and to have consumer protections enforced by the California Public Utilities Commission. AB 2395 would take away these basic rights.
On behalf of my community I am asking you to Vote No on AB 2395.
Sincerely,
Name
Title
You can learn more at www.mendocinobroadband.org, which is a local group of people working hard to get and maintain communications services in my county.