SIERRA COUNTY — Locals should have received a letter from AT&T in the last few weeks indicating the company’s request to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to be relieved of its obligation as the Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) in Sierra County. This possibility has significant implications for Sierra County and rural communities statewide, as AT&T intends to end service in all of California’s 58 counties, leaving no clear alternative. A COLR is a telecommunications service provider of basic telephone service, commonly via landline, to any customer requesting such service within a specified area. At least one telephone company in any given location is legally required to provide access to telephone service to anyone in its service territory who requests it. AT&T is the designated COLR in most parts of the state and is the largest COLR in California. AT&T is now proposing to withdraw as the COLR without being replaced by a new carrier. AT&T argues that its withdrawal would not necessarily mean that no carriers would provide service in the affected areas and that another could “volunteer” to become the COLR. The notion, however, is not guaranteed and highly unlikely. In its application, AT&T Califonia highlights the enormous costs of maintaining copper landlines, given the declining number of households that currently have them. They state that by being relieved of their obligation, they can focus their resources on deploying more Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP), high-speed broadband options, and 5G towers, which more effectively benefit communities. AT&T states that all its services can be better deployed over broadband, reducing the need for copper lines. According to AT&T, about 90 percent of AT&T California’s former customers have left its plain old telephone service (POTS) for voice services over mobile, wireless, or broadband connections. They also state that 99.9 percent of consumers in AT&T California’s service territory live in areas with at least two comparably or lower-priced broadband or mobile wireless voice alternatives to POTS. As such, they say that customers with other options do not need AT&T California to be the COLR — especially since mobile wireless and broadband voice support 911 dialing, access for people with disabilities, and other critical functions as well as or better than POTS. Once again, the 99.9% doesn’t seem to apply to sparsely populated counties like Sierra County. AT&T’s statistics aggregate data and don’t differentiate between urban centers and rural communities, which can mislead consumers. In recent years, AT&T has actively promoted AT&T U-verse to customers here as a better and cheaper alternative to reduce the number of customers with a copper landline. AT&T also drastically increased the costs of having a copper landline, pushing many customers to abandon them and naturally bringing down the number of copper landline customers. Many customers were unaware that AT&T does not offer new copper landline service in Sierra County and puts up barriers to getting reconnected should a customer rethink ditching a landline. The impact on the telecommunication system in western Sierra County is particularly concerning. Losing copper lines would severely impact telephone service during power outages, severely impacting local emergency services dispatch. Sheriff Fisher confirmed that copper lines downed during last year’s storms severely interrupted radio dispatch service for 911 calls, putting lives at risk. The dispatch system relies on copper landlines that run from CAL-IDA to Indian Valley, where it connects with fiber optic lines that run to Downieville. These lines run over a steep stretch and require much maintenance. When inspected last year, the county found copper lines just lying on the ground between CAL-IDA and Indian Valley, unsecured and unprotected. If AT&T is granted their request, the county would have to maintain these lines. The county would also be on the hook for installing its own microwave stations, significantly increasing its costs of maintaining emergency 911 radio communications. In its application to the CPUC, AT&T isn’t immediately asking to withdraw from all service areas but wants the right to decide to do so in the future. It also requests that the CPUC create a process to streamline and fast-track future requests to withdraw from other areas. AT&T could then potentially leave any service area within six months. Announced in a media blast on January 24th, the CPUC is giving the public only three in-person comment opportunities throughout all of California between February 6th and March 14th and only one session for the public to respond virtually on March 19th. These three in-person-only sessions are in Clovis, Indio, and Ukiah, which does little to cover the 58 counties affected. Given this issue’s historic and critical importance to communities throughout California, the opportunity for public input does not seem sufficient. AT&T representatives would not go on record with questions about the request and process, deferring instead to the CPUC for comment. Maitee Rossoukhi, an Information Officer from the CPUC, commented on the application process. Rossoukhi confirmed Judge Thomas J. Glegola, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case, has scheduled the evidentiary hearing to take place from April 23rd through April 25th, and that status conferences in this proceeding will be held on April 2nd and April 19th. She also indicated that these timelines might change in the next week or so. When asked why there were only three in-person hearings statewide in such a short time and how these sites were chosen, she said they are working on providing more input opportunities and an additional virtual Public Participation Hearing with no date yet specified. AT&T is also asking for CPUC approval to give up its eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation, allowing it to leave a federal Lifeline program and other programs designed to increase telecommunications support for low-income and remotely located individuals. By relinquishing its ETC designation, AT&T would no longer be eligible to receive federal support to provide Lifeline, which could affect all current AT&T federal Lifeline customers. Additionally, per AT&T, for a household receiving federal Lifeline from AT&T, the bill could increase by $5.25 per month for voice-only service or $9.25 per month for bundled or internet service. Another critical factor is that the CPUC has no legal authority to regulate VoIP or high-speed broadband as it does with copper landlines through COLR. That means that if AT&T’s application is successful, it is not obligated to provide VoIP or high-speed broadband deployment in the future. Suppose they decide these fiber optic lines are too expensive or the small population base doesn’t justify further expansion. In that case, Western Sierra County is left with just the 5G tower in Downieville. After years of relying on horrible satellite systems like HughesNet and moving towards better high-speed broadband deployment, AT&T’s request seems to threaten to turn the clocks back in our communities. Led by Supervisors Adams and Heuer, the Sierra County Board of Supervisors approved a letter of opposition to AT&T’s California applications to the CPUC on Tuesday. Supervisor Adams also accompanied a delegation from the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) this week to Washington, D.C., where this issue will be discussed, among others, with our congressional representatives. The RCRC is an important partner in the counties’ efforts as it provides a powerful collective voice representing 40 rural counties in California disproportionally affected by such decisions. The RCRC has filed a strong protest letter to the CPUC stating foremost that it would be premature to grant AT&T California targeted relief without first establishing minimum service quality standards for non-wireline telephone services (i.e., VoIP and broadband). They argue that it is not equitable to force existing customers to abruptly relinquish their current services for known inferior and potentially higher priced options when they do not provide equivalent protections of the plain old telephone service. The CPUC is taking public comments on its website at http://tinyurl.com/5fw45esc You can listen in on the March 19th public comment session (with no voice input) by calling Phone: 1-800-857-1917, passcode: 6032788#. Concerned citizens should also contact the offices of our 3rd Congressional Representative in D.C., Kevin Kiley, as well as State Assembly Member Megan Dahle and State Senate Member Brian Dahle.