Judge rules against AT&T, and Calfornia accuses the carrier of lying in complex lawsuit
AT&T is trying to rid itself of what California says is the carrier's obligation to provide basic service to its landline customers in the state.
AT&T shot down in court by a judge | Image by AT&T
A ruling made last week by a federal judge allows California to keep pressuring AT&T to continue offering basic landline phone service to new customers who request it. It was back in May when the carrier sued the state over its Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) rules. These rules obligate designated landline providers in the state, primarily AT&T, to deliver reliable voice service and emergency calls.
AT&T sought to block the state from enforcing COLR by requesting a preliminary injunction
The COLR rules do not require AT&T to provide service through copper wire as basic service can be offered via wireless or fiber as long as the state determines that its quality standards are met. Only 3% of the carrier's customer base in California makes and takes calls over copper wires.
AT&T sought a preliminary injunction that would have allowed it to block California from enforcing its COLR rules while the litigation continued. To be successful with its request, AT&T had to show the court that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that California rules are preempted by an FCC order.
Judge Linda Lopez ruled against AT&T
The case is being heard in US District Court for the Southern District of California. It is there that the carrier argued that it should be able to stop offering basic phone service to new customers and stop such service for 184,000 residential customers and 15,000 business subscribers starting on June 1, 2027.
Let's play judge here and tell me who is the victor on the merits?
The judge did not see AT&T being able to win its argument, and as a result, AT&T was denied the preliminary injunction last Thursday with the slash of Judge Linda Lopez's pen. AT&T could appeal Judge Lopez's ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If it loses the underlying case, AT&T could appeal later. The bottom line is that without the preliminary injunction, AT&T must follow the state's orders, which call for the telecom giant to continue to provide basic phone service to potential and existing customers in the state.
AT&T complains that it is forced by the state to "spend $1 billion each year to maintain a century-old telephone network"
AT&T has pointed out in court just how difficult California has been. In 20 out of the 21 states where it still offers wireline service (the one exception being California, of course), AT&T has been granted relief from its COLR obligations. As AT&T has said, "California requires AT&T to spend $1 billion each year to maintain a century-old telephone network that almost no one uses."
When you hear about copper wiring, is this the type of phone you think of? | Image by Antique Telephones
At the end of the day, the carrier wants simply to get rid of the copper lines. But here's the thing, folks, it doesn't want to replace the copper with fiber, which would make sense. In areas where it isn't profitable enough for AT&T to replace the copper lines with a modern replacement, customers would be told to use the company's cellular service for home phone service.
California calls AT&T's legal actions "a facade"
California state officials call AT&T's legal posturing "a facade," pointing out that the basic phone service AT&T is required to offer under COLR can be offered via fiber connections in most areas. The state says that AT&T is using this "analog vs. digital" narrative so that it can be dropped from its obligations under COLR.
AT&T argues that the Federal Communications Act prevents California laws and regulations from overturning a rule already authorized by the FCC. It also says that the California Public Service Commission (CPUC) won't allow it to replace copper with fiber. However, the state told the FCC that AT&T is lying, as California says that its rules are "technology neutral" and that AT&T is allowed to use wired, wireless, and/or VoIP service in order to meet its COLR obligations.
This is an interesting case that seems simple on the surface, but gets more complex the deeper you look. AT&T's motion filed with the court seeking a preliminary injunction says that without being granted its request, "AT&T will suffer irreparable harm to both its business interests and its constitutional rights."
Popular stories
Latest News
Things that are NOT allowed:
To help keep our community safe and free from spam, we apply temporary limits to newly created accounts: