On June 29, 2026, the FCC automatically granted AT&T’s applications to discontinue residential and business landlines in many California communities, despite many public comments opposing this move from AT&T customers and local officials. The proceedings are 26-120 and 26-121. Comments can be viewed by typing in the proceeding numbers on this page, clicking on the proceeding name that comes up, and clicking “search” at the bottom of the page.
The automatic approval was by the FCC Wireline Competition Bureau.
Three documents have been filed to the FCC, protesting the Bureau’s decision.
On July 28, Nina Beety filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition, Exhibit A, Exhibit B). On August 7, AT&T filed an Opposition to her Petition for Reconsideration. On August 14, she filed a Reply to AT&T’s Opposition.
On July 29, the California Public Utilities Commission filed an Application for Review.
From the CPUC’s Application for Review (p. 2):
That we seek review not of the Bureau’s words but of its silence demonstrates both the unusual nature of this proceeding and the harm that the Bureau’s non-action has worked on the many commenters who opposed AT&T’s applications. As a policy matter, the Bureau has left the CPUC, California, and the hundreds of thousands of affected customers with no explanation of why these applications were granted despite the critical public health and safety questions that discontinuance poses. And as a legal matter, the Bureau’s silence prejudices our attempt to seek review. The Commission’s rules specify, for example, that applications for review should refer to the Bureau’s “findings of fact or conclusions of law,” and “shall state with particularity the respects in which the action taken by the designated authority should be changed.” Without something—anything—from the Bureau, how could anyone do so? As another example, applications for review shall “specify with particularity” the grounds for review, including where the Bureau made “[a]n erroneous finding as to an important or material question of fact.” How could we know? We are left arguing with a ghost.
In a separate filing July 29, the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), the Utility Reform Network (TURN), and the Communication Workers of America (CWA) filed a joint Application for Review.
On August 14, AT&T filed a joint Opposition to the AFRs.
There has been significant opposition to ACA-9 (see below). As a result, the author pulled it from this legislative session, but the author plans to return with it next year. In addition, comment deadlines for FCC dockets 26-123 and 26-125 have been extended.
Action Alert:
Copperline landlines are essential infrastructure. They work in power outages and in most disasters; the lines are powered, including making your phone ring, so you can reach 911 and your doctor, receive evacuation notices, stay connected to elderly and ill loved ones, and have others connect to you. This stellar service provides pinpoint location data to emergency responders when seconds count – a house invasion, a fire, someone is choking, has a heart attack, or stroke. Historically, the phone network was so reliable it was said to have “five nines” reliability — 99.999% reliable– meaning you had a dial tone for all but 5 minutes per year on average. The voice quality is superior, it’s secure, and it doesn’t drop calls. The lines also provide DSL internet. Plus, Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) status requires AT&T to provide service to everyone who asks without discrimination.
VoIP and wireless require batteries. When the battery dies, there is no connection. They have problems with reliability. They are not available everywhere or are not consistently available. Wireless devices including wireless VoIP have health and safety problems.
Lifeline is a special program for that subsidizes low income customers.
Critical Deadlines
June 2, 12:00pm PDT – Opposition statements due to CA Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee on Assembly Constitutional Amendment 9
June 3, 3:30pm PDT – Opposition statements due to CA Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee on Assembly Constitutional Amendment 9
June 15 – Comment deadline for FCC dockets 26-120 and 26-121
Extended to July 7 – Comment deadline for FCC dockets 26-123 and 26-125; July 22 Reply Comment deadline
AT&T petitions to discontinue landline and Lifeline – 26-120, 26-121, 26-123, 26-125
AT&T filed the following petitions to the FCC to eliminate landlines and Lifeline in areas of California including in the Monterey Bay region. These petitions will be automatically granted if there is no opposition.
Deadlines for filing comments/opposition: June 15 and 22, 2026 July 7 and 22, 2026 — WC Docket 26-123, 26-125
Be sure to put the docket number and the Comp. Pol. File No. on your comments for 26-120 and 26-121.
Because the FCC streamlined the process to allow carriers to discontinue landline service as part of a “technology transition”, these requests are automatically grantedin most cases. Filing oppositions is the only way to protest AT&T discontinuance plans; it stops the FCC from automatically granting the applications. If they receive opposition, the FCC will remove AT&T’s application from “streamlining” and perform a review.
These applications contain the notice mailed 5/20 to customers.
Filing Oppositions or Comments is not difficult. To submit them to the FCC, you can prepare a letter and upload it (ECFS Standard Filing) or type/paste a comment into ECFS Express Filing.
Instructions for the longer Standard Filing form: Proceeding: Start typing the docket number such as 26-123 and the docket title will pop up . Click on the title and it will fill in the docket name. Fill in starred lines. Type of Filing: Click on the box and choose Comment or Opposition (the FCC says either category is okay) Address of: Click on box and choose whichever is correct Fill out remaining red starred items. Upload your document(s). Click in yellow box. Click blue “Continue to Review Screen” and submit from there.
Postponed until 2027 Assembly Constitutional Amendment 9 (ACA-9) (Boerner)
ACA-9 would eliminate key CPUC regulatory functions over utilities, remove telecom companies from being considered public utilities and remove them from CPUC regulatory oversight in the California Constitution, and create a new expensive agency for broadband and telecom. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260ACA9
Senate hearings start June 8June 9; deadlines begin this week to submit position letters of protest. Each committee gives the deadlines for submitting position letters before each hearing. The current bill may be amended. If amended, the committees will only accept letters that are based on the most recent version. Check the link above for any amendments.
1) CANCELLED Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee hearing June 8. Opposition statements must be sent in by June 2 at noon. https://seuc.senate.ca.gov/committeehome
2 CANCELLED Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee hearing June 9, 9:30 AM.
The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications analysis is the most thorough review of questions and issues with ACA-9. After the hearing was cancelled, it was taken down from the Senate website, presumably because the bill might be amended. You can read it here.
Contact senators, particularly those on the committees and educate them. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote to pass.
CPUC R.24-06-012 docket on COLR and telephone service
AT&T has requested to eliminate its COLR obligations. The CPUC is in its final stages of reviewing COLR rules to set new rules or possibly discontinue all or most Carriers of Last Resort (COLR) in California. COLR means that these companies are required to provide basic phone service to all who request it. That service has meant landlines.
If AT&T’s COLR designation is eliminated, there will be no protection for the public because there are no functionally equivalent alternatives to the traditional landline phones, especially in rural and remote areas, but also in urban areas. “Reception” is not an issue for landlines, but it is a problem for wireless systems. Fiber isn’t available in many places, and those systems must have batteries. Non-COLR companies cannot be compelled to offer service to an applicant or offer landline service. Many people may have no coverage at all if AT&T and others decommission copper service, and that also includes those disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity and other EMF-sensitive disabilities who cannot tolerate wireless exposure.
The CPUC Staff Proposal proposes eliminating critical service elements of basic voice service, allowing carriers to more easily fulfill their COLR obligations via alternative services instead of copper. The proposal also significantly de-emphasizes voice and shifts to focusing on broadband connectivity instead.
Submit public comments by clicking the Public Comments tab at the top o the Docket page, and then clicking “Submit Public Comment”. Document files can also be emailed to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Consumer parties include EMF Safety Network, TURN, Center for Accessible Technology, Rural County Representatives of California, and the Public Advocates Office at the CPUC (Cal Advocates). Their comments provide information on some of the important issues and considerations.
The proceeding began in 2024 and a proposed decision is expected at any time. The judge just issued a ruling to AT&T to clarify contradictory statements.
Call the California Attorney General 1-800-952-5225 (916-210-6276 out of state) Press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish, then press 7 to leave a message for the Attorney General. For example: I am asking the attorney general to defend the rights of hundreds of thousands of Californians to reliable phone service by challenging AT&T’s petition to disconnect 200,000 customers and also fight AT&T’s lawsuit against you and the CPUC. The alternatives that AT&T claims are sufficient are inferior and inadequate (and not even functional everywhere), and if AT&T wins this lawsuit, thousands of Californians may never have reliable phone service again, so we need you to make this issue a top priority. Please also challenge the FCC order asserting preemption of state rules like COLR.
–
Extensive information is available on these and other landline dockets in the United States at https://phreaknet.org/action
Monterey Bay Matters 