- AT&T is pursuing its goal through the FCC, CPUC and the courts
- It’s also pledging to spend $19 billion more on connectivity in California
- But the consumer group TURN wants to see hard evidence that people in remote areas won’t be cut off from reliable phone service
Petitions and appeals are flying between AT&T and government groups as AT&T accelerates its agenda to get out of the landline telephone business in California. But AT&T hasn’t provided data to prove that its alternative connectivity solution will definitely work in the most remote locations of the state, according to a consumer advocacy group.
AT&T has filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and with the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), and it’s also filed lawsuits against CPUC.
On June 29, AT&T secured a win with the FCC, when it allowed AT&T’s application to discontinue certain services in California to be automatically granted after a comment period.
However, that’s far from the end of the dispute, given the fact that there are still ongoing matters with CPUC and in court.
Fierce spoke with Ryan Johnston, regulatory attorney for telecommunications at TURN- The Utility Reform Network. TURN is a California-based nonprofit consumer advocacy organization. Fierce asked how this is all going to shake out?
Johnston said, “There are people that get paid a lot more than me to read those tea leaves, and at this point, it is going to be very difficult to say.” He said the FCC will have to take more comments and write an order and get it published in the Federal Register before it can then be challenged. And the two current lawsuits in California are only just beginning.
In the meantime, AT&T is still obliged to provide its copper-based telephone service to customers who choose it.
Point counter point
AT&T really, really wants to discontinue landline copper-based phone services in California. Not only is it aggressively pursuing permission to do so via all the means mentioned above, but on May 20, 2026, AT&T committed to invest $19 billion in California through 2030 to connect more Californians to its networks.
“AT&T is proud to commit $19 billion of investment in California’s fiber and wireless networks by the end of 2030, building the high-speed connectivity required for the next era of innovation and economic growth in the state,” said AT&T. “We’re making our largest-ever infrastructure investment commitment in the state and investing $3 billion more in the next five years (2026-2030) than the previous five (2021-2025) – reaching $35 billion invested over 10 years (2021-2030) in California’s network.”
AT&T also says it will offer affordable options and make sure that no one goes unconnected. The company says only 3% of households it serves in California still use traditional phone service. “We are beginning the process to upgrade our customers to fiber and wireless services and discontinue energy inefficient copper-based services in parts of the state on or after June 1, 2027.”
But Johnston says TURN and others take issue with a lot of AT&T’s pledges.
He said AT&T’s alternative for people who currently rely on its legacy telephone service is AT&T Phone Advanced. He said it’s a voice-over-IP (VoIP) service that “essentially runs on their cellular network” and connects to a box in the customer’s home. He said the wireless aspect of the service is a problem in some places in California that are super remote and vulnerable to things in the state such as wildfires and earthquakes.
“So there are plenty of places in California where this service just won't work because the folks on the ground aren't going to be able to receive a cell signal,” said Johnston. “And our issue there is: we can't have an alternative service that is supposed to be everybody's last-resort service if they can't get it, and it relies on wireless.”
As an aside, Brightspeed is using a similar VoIP service to transition people off legacy copper networks in its service territory on the East Coast.
Johnston said, “One of the things that gives us pause is that AT&T has claimed that the FCC has given it authority to use this service as a reliable alternative in a bunch of other states, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, but we haven't seen it tested in California that has all of those issues with natural disasters and that has that massive topographical range.”
He said there are already some AT&T customers in California using the AT&T Phone Advanced, but AT&T has not provided any data or proof to CPUC that the technology definitely works in the most remote areas that TURN is concerned about.
“I would love to see them do a study and be able to look over what the results of that would be,” said Johnston.
AT&T is also pledging to deploy a lot more fiber broadband in California. But Johnston said, “AT&T has not told us where they're going to put that fiber.” He noted that fiber is super expensive to deploy to the most remote areas.
In conclusion Johnston said, “Our position is that this is not a question of what technology is used to connect these folks. This is a question of: are they going to receive something that is just as reliable as the thing that they have now? When AT&T quantitatively proves that they can do that, far be it from us to stop them.”
**Update: After this story published an AT&T spokesperson said, "The FCC has confirmed that AP-A meets its standards as an adequate replacement. In order for the FCC to approve our discontinuance applications, reliable connectivity must be provided in those locations."
See more stories about AT&T and California:
AT&T wants off the hook for California landline phone service
AT&T wants off the hook for California landline phone service
Facts Only
* AT&T is pursuing goals via the FCC, CPUC, and courts.
* AT&T pledged to spend $19 billion more on connectivity in California.
* AT&T filed applications with the FCC and CPUC regarding service discontinuation.
* AT&T secured an FCC win allowing automatic discontinuation of certain services after a comment period.
* AT&T remains obligated to provide copper-based telephone service to customers who choose it.
* AT&T committed to investing $19 billion in fiber and wireless networks by the end of 2030, reaching $35 billion invested over ten years (2021-2030).
* The company plans to upgrade customers to fiber and wireless services and discontinue copper services in parts of the state on or after June 1, 2027.
* AT&T offers AT&T Phone Advanced, a VoIP service running on the cellular network.
* TURN seeks hard evidence that remote areas will not be cut off from reliable phone service with the alternative solution.
* The FCC confirmed that AP-A meets its standards as an adequate replacement for discontinuance applications to be approved.
Executive Summary
AT&T is pursuing the discontinuation of landline copper-based phone services in California through applications to the FCC and CPUC, while also pledging significant investment in connectivity expansion. AT&T plans to spend $19 billion on connectivity in California through 2030. The company aims to upgrade customers to fiber and wireless services and discontinue energy-inefficient copper services in parts of the state starting on June 1, 2027. A consumer group, TURN, seeks evidence that remote residents will maintain reliable service when switching to AT&T’s alternative connectivity solution, AT&T Phone Advanced, particularly given concerns about reliability in remote areas vulnerable to natural disasters.
AT&T asserts that its alternative services, like VoIP running on cellular networks, meet FCC standards and intends to provide affordable options while ensuring no one becomes unconnected. However, consumer advocates question whether the proposed alternatives, especially those relying on wireless technology in remote locations, will offer service reliability comparable to legacy copper lines, especially considering topographical challenges and disaster risks. The dispute involves ongoing legal actions with the CPUC and appeals through the FCC process, with regulators awaiting further data before making final determinations regarding the discontinuance applications.
Full Take
The narrative centers on a conflict between corporate infrastructure goals and the real-world reliability experienced by end-users, specifically in geographically challenging areas. AT&T is advancing a strategy of service migration based on substantial capital investment, but this transition is predicated on regulatory approval rather than proven efficacy for all segments of the customer base. The core tension lies in the gap between technological capability (the ability to deploy fiber or VoIP) and operational reality (whether that technology functions reliably under extreme, real-world stress, such as wildfires or earthquakes).
The skepticism raised by consumer groups like TURN highlights a critical omission: the absence of empirical testing specifically validating service quality in the most remote and vulnerable locales. The legal and regulatory process appears to prioritize procedural compliance—gathering comments and issuing orders—over demanding pre-emptive, comprehensive performance data. This sets up a dynamic where AT&T’s authority is currently based on its commitments and regulatory maneuvering rather than demonstrated universal reliability for all service areas.
The strategic move to focus on the "what" of connectivity versus the "reliability" of that connectivity reveals an implicit hierarchy of concerns. AT&T focuses on demonstrating technological advancement and financial commitment, while critics focus on the fundamental right to a reliable service irrespective of geography or infrastructure type. The ultimate test for this system is whether regulatory bodies and courts will mandate rigorous, location-specific performance studies, forcing the industry to move beyond process compliance toward substantive accountability regarding service delivery in contexts defined by vulnerability.
BRIDGE QUESTIONS:
What specific, independently conducted testing protocols must be mandated by the FCC and CPUC to satisfy the requirement that alternative services are "just as reliable" as legacy services across all geographical terrains?
If AT&T cannot provide definitive, location-specific data on remote service reliability before approval, what recourse do consumer advocacy groups have beyond filing further appeals in court, and how can regulatory bodies enforce this standard when technological proof is withheld?
How should the system evolve to ensure that infrastructure investment goals are directly coupled with verifiable assurances of equitable service quality for all residents, particularly those situated in areas prone to environmental hazards?