AT&T Can't Hang Up On Landline Phone Customers, California Agency Rules (arstechnica.com) 53
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) yesterday rejected AT&T's request to end its landline phone obligations. The state agency also urged AT&T to upgrade copper facilities to fiber instead of trying to shut down the outdated portions of its network. AT&T asked the state to eliminate its Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligation, which requires it to provide landline telephone service to any potential customer in its service territory. A CPUC administrative law judge recommended rejection of the application last month, and the commission voted to dismiss AT&T's application with prejudice on Thursday.
"Our vote to dismiss AT&T's application made clear that we will protect customer access to basic telephone service... Our rules were designed to provide that assurance, and AT&T's application did not follow our rules," Commissioner John Reynolds said in a CPUC announcement. State rules require a replacement COLR in order to relieve AT&T of its duties, and AT&T argued that VoIP and mobile services could fill that gap. But residents "highlighted the unreliability of voice alternatives" at public hearings, the CPUC said. "Despite AT&T's contention that providers of voice alternatives to landline service -- such as VoIP or mobile wireless services -- can fill the gap, the CPUC found AT&T did not meet the requirements for COLR withdrawal," the agency said. "Specifically, AT&T failed to demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to serve as COLR, nor did AT&T prove that alternative providers met the COLR definition."
The administrative law judge's proposed decision said AT&T falsely claimed that commission rules require it "to retain outdated copper-based landline facilities that are expensive to maintain." The agency stressed that its rules do not prevent AT&T from upgrading to fiber. "COLR 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," the agency said yesterday. AT&T California President Marc Blakeman said the company is lobbying to change the state law. "No customer will be left without voice and 911 services. We are focused on the legislation introduced in California, which includes important protections, safeguards, and outreach for consumers and does not impact our customers in rural locations. We are fully committed to keeping our customers connected while we work with state leaders on policies that create a thoughtful transition that brings modern communications to all Californians," Blakeman said.
According to SFGATE, the legislation pushed by AT&T "would create a way for AT&T to remain as COLR in rural regions, which the company estimates as being about 100,000 customers, while being released from COLR obligations everywhere else."
"Our vote to dismiss AT&T's application made clear that we will protect customer access to basic telephone service... Our rules were designed to provide that assurance, and AT&T's application did not follow our rules," Commissioner John Reynolds said in a CPUC announcement. State rules require a replacement COLR in order to relieve AT&T of its duties, and AT&T argued that VoIP and mobile services could fill that gap. But residents "highlighted the unreliability of voice alternatives" at public hearings, the CPUC said. "Despite AT&T's contention that providers of voice alternatives to landline service -- such as VoIP or mobile wireless services -- can fill the gap, the CPUC found AT&T did not meet the requirements for COLR withdrawal," the agency said. "Specifically, AT&T failed to demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to serve as COLR, nor did AT&T prove that alternative providers met the COLR definition."
The administrative law judge's proposed decision said AT&T falsely claimed that commission rules require it "to retain outdated copper-based landline facilities that are expensive to maintain." The agency stressed that its rules do not prevent AT&T from upgrading to fiber. "COLR 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," the agency said yesterday. AT&T California President Marc Blakeman said the company is lobbying to change the state law. "No customer will be left without voice and 911 services. We are focused on the legislation introduced in California, which includes important protections, safeguards, and outreach for consumers and does not impact our customers in rural locations. We are fully committed to keeping our customers connected while we work with state leaders on policies that create a thoughtful transition that brings modern communications to all Californians," Blakeman said.
According to SFGATE, the legislation pushed by AT&T "would create a way for AT&T to remain as COLR in rural regions, which the company estimates as being about 100,000 customers, while being released from COLR obligations everywhere else."
Poor AT&T (Score:4, Informative)
How will they afford to keep the landlines? https://investors.att.com/~/me... [att.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not a future profit center; why would they care? They'd like to divest all the legacy stuff.
Those who don't see this as how the financialization of publicly traded companies has gone awry are the issue here. The breakup was a good thing; the reassembling of the baby Bells into behemoths like Verizon and AT&T was the issue. They wanted to pick up the regulated utility assets and then go off and just make money with them. This is just a holding action until they get their way eventually.
Re:Poor AT&T (Score:4, Informative)
They'd like to divest all the legacy stuff.
About ten years ago, an AT&T contractor was going through my subdivision to tear up all the copper wire. I asked one of them if they were replacing it with fiber, and he said they were replacing it with new copper wire. I was stunned, so I asked him if they were going to lay down fiber in addition to the copper since the biggest cost in a fiber deployment is the labor to dig the trenches. It would kill two birds with one stone. He said it was just copper wire.
AT&T seems to want to keep all the old expenses and get rid of all the new revenue generators.
A few years ago, a different company laid fiber through my entire neighborhood and picked up a bunch of new customers that AT&T and Mediacomm apparently don't want.
Re: (Score:1)
Not a future profit center; why would they care?
This is an interesting outlook, because recently for the first time in decades I've actually been considering switching back to a landline. After Covid, all my cellphone does now is sit on my desk and collect SPAM. The landline is starting to seem a lot more practical again. I can't be the only one who has noticed this. Maybe AT&T is actually making money off the SPAM or something...
Re: (Score:2)
Not a future profit center; why would they care? They'd like to divest all the legacy stuff.
They don't want to "over" invest in current and future profit centres either. If they offered reliable cell service in the rural and mountainous areas where people still rely on landlines then I don't think the PUC would have any real objection to them dropping land lines. But AT&T doesn't want to be the provider of last resort using ANY technology. They want to provide service good enough to prevent mass defection to other providers. Those other providers also do not want to provide rock solid serv
Re: (Score:2)
Maintenance cost per customer goes up quick as customers depart. Frontier basically abandoned my area by neglect, as in they never fixed anything. Eventually they sold the lines to someone else who at least pretends to care. I'd dropped the landline by then.
Base station cellular has longer range for those low density areas. They could install that. Your pocket cellphone may not reach the tower, but the directional antenna on the roof with a serious transmitter will.
After I dropped the landline years I had t
Re: (Score:2)
>"Redundancy is a nice thing to have."
Indeed, and that is one reason many of us (myself included) still like to have a real land line (CO-powered copper from Verizon, in my case). The problem is that they are not as profitable, so the prices keep going up and up (made worse by old taxes). So now my land line, on the lowest possible plan (no long distance, restricted number of calls, zero features- no call waiting no caller id, etc) costs more than my mobile/cell phone plan, which includes caller ID, 3-
Re: Poor AT&T (Score:2)
I have one of those Panasonic DECT. The link2cell feature only works with the base station, using bluetooth.
That does not go far at all in my home.
However, I have 6 DECT handsets and they work work everywhere on my property, including outdoors. There are many more rooms than 6, though.
I use a directional antenna on the roof for Internet service from Sail.
For voice, I use Wifi calling on the cell phone.
And that Panasonic DECT is hooked up to a Grandstream HT802.
All of these devices require power.
I have a co
Re: (Score:2)
>"I have one of those Panasonic DECT. The link2cell feature only works with the base station, using bluetooth."
Seems fine for me. I don't carry a call phone around with me in the house. Also, the range is good enough that it probably work in this house if I did. It almost always connects automatically, within seconds when I come home. Very rarely it just stops connecting and I have to remove the handset and unplug power to the base and back, then it will connect again. It is an annoying bug. Not su
Re: Poor AT&T (Score:2)
I have a huge house - 4600 sq ft - with thick construction. Bluetooth cannot reach through 2 walls. 1 wall is OK. The Bluetooth speakers of my hot tub on the upper deck sometimes connect to my phone when I'm downstairs. That's about 40ft away, but only separated by one wall with 3 large windows. The hot tub Bluetooth module has an extremely annoying bug: you cannot unpair any device. I would call it a design defect. Sometimes I'll play a video on my phone and there is no sound. It is actually playing under
Re: (Score:2)
>"I don't believe the Panasonic supports intercom functionality."
Mine do! But I live alone, so I have never really used the feature "live" before. Press menu, "Intercom" on the left hot button. With it I can choose which handset to call, by name. There is even an option for "All" to ring all handsets at once or "Voice Page" and you can force-speak through all the handsets at once. Would come in handy in a big house with multiple people.
Re: (Score:2)
Just took a look at the manual, and mine does too ! Never knew it. Looks like I need to name each of the handsets. It's kind of weird that you have to call a specific handset rather than calling all of them.
That hot tub bluetooth thing is really annoying - I can unpair the phone, but then if within range of the hot tub, it floods the phone with pairing requests, making it completely unusable until one either accepts the request, or bluetooth is turned off. Next phone, I won't be pairing my next phone with i
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's kind of weird that you have to call a specific handset rather than calling all of them."
Did you see my post? You *can* call all of them as an option (at least, mine can). And you can voicepage also, like "time for dinner!"
Re: (Score:2)
My KX-TG6581 doesn't appear to have those options. I can only call the base or specific handsets. No "all" or voice page. That would indeed be quite handy.
Re: (Score:2)
AH, OK. Mine is currently a KX-TGE475 from 2017. I had a different/older one from that before, but I don't remember the model number- I gave it to my Mom for her apartment and upgraded to the KX-TGE475. I *love* that they all just use standard nmhi AAA batteries.
Maybe time for you to upgrade? I am amazed how cheap the systems are for what they do. For example the TGF675 is only $175 and has 5 handsets and you can add 1 more (seems 6 is the max on any of them) https://www.amazon.com/Panason... [amazon.com]
That one
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I love that they take AAA batteries as well.
You are right, after 14 years it may be time for an upgrade.
I thought the DECT 6.0 standard had a 6-handset limit, but researching these, I found that is not the case. AT&T, Panasonic and V-Tech all have 12-handset models. I wonder why they would sell some systems with limited capacity.
If I'm liberal about counting rooms (one master closet is bigger than a room in my previous home), we technically have 17.
So, a 12 handset version with proper intercom woul
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the HD voice only works if you are using Link2cell, but I can't do that. Unless the handsets themselves could pair with the cell. But I don't think you can have more than 1 or 2 such devices active on a cell phone. Anyway, pretty sure only the base does bluetooth, and the handsets don't.
I use voip.ms with a Grandstream HT802 ATA. I do get caller ID, though there is a very small fee for it.
I just checked, and the KX-TG9542B base with 2 handsets is $160 at Amazon . It is expandable to 12 handsets.
Un
Re: (Score:2)
>"I believe the HD voice only works if you are using Link2cell, but I can't do that. Unless the handsets themselves could pair with the cell."
Yes, the HD voice is only for cell calls (the bluetooth link from base to cell). But that is OK, since the other input for land line is analog- there is no way to do HD with that. It gives high-quality audio from the cell phone to all the wireless KX-TGF675S DECT handsets for cell calls. It is a pretty major feature. And the KX-TGF975B appears to lack it (even
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like those expensive Panasonic business phones that go to 12 handsets don't support voice paging.
And both the consumer and business phones can only page all handsets from the base unit. I don't understand why.
V-tech doesn't support either feature apparently.
So, that leaves ... AT&T. The CL82219 allows 12 handset and paging all of them. No voice paging.
But it doesn't cost $1000, like the Panasonic business set of 12 that can't even page all handsets.
$110 for the 5-handset version. And $149 for the
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. The models are really confusing !
The KX-TG9581 / 9581 do support 12 handsets, though. But if I am reading he manual correctly, you can only page all handsets from the base unit. And there is no voice paging.
The price of handsets is prohibitive, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T and others have been collapsing central offices for years as landline usage dwindles. There's fewer COs and what copper remains often terminates at a pedestal in the neighborhood somewhere (with comparatively limited battery backup) and a fiber uplink to a more distant CO.
Yours might still be fed directly to the CO via copper but its less common now days.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I am urban, so it is not likely copper all the way anymore. But maybe to some point within a mile or so and then turned into fiber? Who knows. But power hasn't ever been an issue, even when power was lost "everywhere" for days.
Re:Poor AT&T (Score:5, Interesting)
Maintenance cost per customer goes up quick as customers depart
You're not wrong but to repeat a very old lament/bitch of mine, why did all of those customers depart in the first place and why couldn't the ILECs remain competitive? Ask yourself why MSOs (aka: Big Cable) were allowed to come in with a VoIP product that did not have to meet POTS uptime/reliability standards, or any of the other regulations traditionally applied to POTS, while the ILECs were still mandated to comply with the (arguably outdated) video franchising model when they attempted to sell CATV service.
That's the big reason why Verizon abandoned FiOS in the oughts and why so many other attempts to build out FTTH networks died. It used to be (before the advent of streaming) all about the Triple Play. The cable industry could deliver a Triple Play without any additional regulatory/compliance burden. The telcos could not. They had to Pay to Play and many times your friendly local government wouldn't let them play at any price, thanks to your local cable monopoly, but nobody stopped that same monopoly from undercutting the telco's voice business.
I'm not anti-regulation -- far from it -- but I am anti-crony capitalism and that's exactly what happened here. The cable industry bought off regulators to keep the telco industry from undermining their core business while they simultaneously undermined the telcos.
Re: (Score:3)
why MSOs (aka: Big Cable) were allowed to come in with a VoIP product that did not have to meet POTS uptime/reliability standards, or any of the other regulations traditionally applied to POTS
In short: The reliability standards SHOULD be applied to them. Regardless of technology: If they are selling "residential home telephone service", Or Cellular telephone service, then the Uptime and Reliability standards should be updated to make sure these companies Have to abide by them.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll forgive me if I don't shed tears for a company that would sign up third party ISPs to sell their DSL, lock them into a contract, then undercut them by selling to the same customer base for cheaper (or for the same amount of money, but with more advertising spend.)
ILECs teed off on consumers for years, raking in the profits, and not investing it back. Fuck 'em. Just like all the power companies whining how EVs are going to overwhelm the grid and meanwhile you can't find three consecutive power poles
Re: (Score:2)
You'll forgive me if I don't shed tears for a company that would sign up third party ISPs to sell their DSL, lock them into a contract, then undercut them by selling to the same customer base for cheaper
I can tell you a long story about Citizens (now Frontier) doing something very similar to crowd out the local businesses that brought Internet access to my rural hometown. We had no local numbers (remember long distance?) to reach the big boys, AOL, CompuServe, etc., and Citizens had no interest in getting into the business. Two local ISPs sprung up to meet the need. One of them gave me my first job. Our owner was a former NYNEX man and privy to the underhanded tactics the ILECs would employ, so he stru
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I wasn't white knighting cable companies. I'm not a fan of them either. I was just pointing out that telcos could have gone fiber years back but chose not to (although, given my dealings with telco techs, I wonder how much of that was union pressure to not make the oldsters "learn something new".)
Re: (Score:2)
I was just pointing out that telcos could have gone fiber years back but chose not to
And one of the reasons for that was the unfair playing field. Verizon committed to billions of dollars in CapEx with an original plan to overbuild the entire copper footprint. They backed out of it for a lot of reasons but one of the underreported ones was the fact they could not obtain video franchises in many of their markets. It was an artificial regulatory hurdle propped up by the cable industry. Meanwhile, that same industry could sell voice products without meeting any of the regulatory requiremen
Re: (Score:1)
How will they afford to keep the landlines? https://investors.att.com/~/me... [att.com]
Ford and GM are also profitable. Does that mean they should be required to supply buggy whips?
Re: (Score:1)
If the local government gave them a monopoly on buggies, and they have blockd non-buggy transportation options in those areas, then yes.
Re: (Score:2)
How will they afford to keep the landlines? https://investors.att.com/~/me... [att.com]
Ford and GM are also profitable. Does that mean they should be required to supply buggy whips?
No, they shouldn't. And like TFA says, the CPUC says AT&T isn't obliged to supply POTS with copper wires.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't hang up, but they can give up. (Score:1)
Leave it to a wireless company (Score:3)
Leave it to a wireless company not to want to maintain wires. and COs. and POPs and to a brain-dead PUC that doesn't understand how much it costs to keep that same infrastructure viable.
Meanwhile, the lineman is doing the happy dance.
Re: (Score:2)
They've also done a shitty job of maintaining cellular and wi-fi services, which is the real problem: Good of you to ignore bad behaviour.
Maybe they don't understand how they played favourites and created this problem. They do understand that AT&T is demanding a reward for doing a shitty job.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the lineman is doing the happy dance.
So is PGE, SCE, SDGE and all the rest. Who do you think leases space on the poles to telco and catv at near zero cost?
Funny that the CPUC would take up a position favorable to PGE...
Re: (Score:2)
>Funny that the CPUC would take up a position favorable to PGE...
[mumbling] "Wouldn't it be a *shame* if there were a wildfire in your neighborhood?"
Re: (Score:2)
Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Wireless electronics is like pipeless plumbing (porta potties)
It can be made to work if needed, with limitations, but a pipe is always better
Wireless should NOT be the only option
We need fiber
My semi-rural area has no wireless signal. Our local ISP has been trying to install fiber for years, but the telecom monopolists have blocked them using every dirty trick in the book. Their attitude seems to be, we refuse to serve the area but will prevent anybody else from serving it
Re: Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
I agree with you, but even in San Jose, I'm in a location that will likely never get fiber. No cell signal reaches indoors, also.
What does work is a directional antenna with service from Sail internet. It's not as fast as fiber to be sure. It manages about 200/30 Mbps at Mt locations. I'm told I could have gotten 300/300 if a palmtree hadn't grown in the way of another uplink ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get your analogy, what do porta-potties have to do with shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless electronics is like pipeless plumbing (porta potties)
I get you, but maybe a somewhat better analogy involving plumbing and the removal of housing wastes is a septic tank.
I just paid $13.5K for a whole new septic system for our little old house in our little old neighborhood west of Orlando out in the county. It's honestly money that would have been better spent getting our hookup to the sewer system (~ $9K at the current fee) and the additional cost on the water bill (currently we pay for water coming in, but not sewage going out). But our old neighborhood ha
The 1990's called... (Score:1)
Voice over Fiber should be allowed (Score:1)
It's quite reasonable that copper could be swapped for a fiber based product. Most fiber products will be highly centralized in nature and have decent uptime.
With low cost solar panels and batteries it's not necessary for the phone company to provide remote power to our homes anymore.
If AT&T does not want to upgrade my neighborhood from copper to fiber then the state should give the broken down conduits to the city. A decent muni fiber network would be appreciated.
Re: Voice over Fiber should be allowed (Score:2)
Solar panels without batteries automatically shut down when the grid is down, in order to prevent electrocuting linesman.
If there are batteries, there will be backup. Batteries are still quite expensive. This morning, during a 6 minute power outage, my 70 panels with micro-inverters shut down, because I have no batteries, at least, not for the home. I do have 4 UPSesx but they wouldn't last very long with all the network equipment I have, like the PoE-powered modem on the roof.
So, no, it's not reasonable to
Re: Voice over Fiber should be allowed (Score:2)
Around here, when there is a power outage, the cable service goes down. We don't have fiber so I cannot say what it would be like.
When the power comes back, there is a weird timing problem when the cable company's equipment hasn't fully powered up before my modem and router have. The result is that the internet never comes back after a power outage long enough to outlast the UPSes, until I physically intervene and reboot the modem not once, but twice, and the router as well.
I'm still trying to automate a fi
Yeah, right! (Score:1)
AT&T has been quietly converting POTS to cell (Score:2)
landline good (Score:2)
Landline has a lot to recommend it. I'd go back to landline for my house phone if:
1. It were reasonably priced.
2. It were reliable.
#1 is not going to happen, because (a) ATT is scumbags, and (b) there are no longer enough customers to support the infrastructure.
#2 Already was not happening decades ago, as ATT decided it had better things to do. As to why it will also never, happen, see answer to #1. True, it works in a power failure, but fails in a rainstorm due to poor maintenance of copper lines.
BTW,
Come on, you can trust AT&T! (Score:2)
According to SFGATE, the legislation pushed by AT&T "would create a way for AT&T to remain as COLR in rural regions ..."
I mean, come on, they will do just a good a job of providing COLR to rural regions as they are of providing "High Speed Internet" to them!