Is ‘carrier of last resort’ on its way out?

Since 1996, California has required select telecommunications companies to offer basic, home telephone service to anyone who asks for it.

Lawmakers could take a major step toward changing that when they return to the Capitol on August 18^th.

The policy, known as the carrier of last resort (COLR), was implemented to ensure that all Californians have access to reliable telephone service. But it also requires telecom companies like AT&T to maintain outdated and expensive infrastructure, like copper wiring to individual homes.

Today, of course, most Californians rely upon mobile phones for telephone service. Only 0.6 percent of state residents rely solely on landlines.

For the last decade or so, AT&T and other telecom companies that have been designated carriers of last resort in parts of the Golden State have tried to get the policy changed, arguing that it’s old fashioned and stands in the way innovation.

But some residents who continue to use landlines have persistently objected, expressing fear that without this policy as a backstop they’ll face a future without reliable telephone access.

That narrative may be changing this year, however, with AB 470, by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood).

That bill seeks to establish a process to phase out the carrier of last resort policy in parts of California. That, in turn, would require telecoms to take resources previously used to maintain old infrastructure and redirect them towards installing more modern hardware.

But some residents who continue to use landlines have persistently objected, expressing fear that without this policy as a backstop they’ll face a future without reliable telephone access.

The bill has made it further than any other attempt to amend this policy, passing out of the Assembly and its first policy committee in the Senate. It appears to be succeeding where other attempts failed thanks to thoughtful policymaking founded as much on collaboration and transparency as confidence in modern technology.

“This has a lot also to do with timing,” said Pastor Tecoy Porter Sr., president of the National Action Network Sacramento, a local chapter of the civil rights and social justice organization originally founded by Rev. Al Sharpton.

Porter said the pandemic dramatically revealed the gap between communities with high-speed internet connections and those that have stuck primarily with old communications technology.

“People should not have to rely anymore on outdated technology,” he said.

AB 470 attempts to comfort residents worried about losing their landline service by requiring that the California Public Utilities Commission first assess whether a particular geographic area is appropriately served.

To meet that criteria, the CPUC must find that the area has at least three alternate voice services available, including at least one landline provider and one that that participates in the California LifeLine program, which provides discounted home phone and mobile phone services to eligible households.

Only then would an area be eligible to transition away from the carrier of last resort standard. This deliberate process is designed so that transitions would take years, not months, giving wary residents confidence that their reliable landline isn’t being snatched out from under them.

When an area is declared ready for transition, the bill mandates that the telecom once responsible for maintaining the old carrier of last resort infrastructure in the region to divert their resources to building out their local fiber optics network.

The proposal essentially calls for the phase out of the carrier of last resort policy to facilitate and fund the modernization of California’s communications network.

The proposal has been championed from the beginning by a broad coalition of about 140 organizations spanning business, tribal, ethnic and veteran interests, including the NAACP California-Hawaii State Conference, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Nations Indian Gaming Association.

It still initially faced notable opposition from the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties and the Urban Counties of California, which argued that removing the carrier of last resort policy would strip vulnerable communities of an important safety net.

But the coalition backing AB 470 was able get all three organizations to remove their opposition by engaging them in thorough conversations about the bill and about their concerns.

In a June 19 letter to McKinnor announcing that RCRC was removing its opposition to bill, Senior Policy Advocate Tracy Rhine wrote, “We recognize the efforts made to acknowledge our concerns, and we look forward to additional engagement as the bill progresses.”

CSAC Legislative Advocate Mark Neuburger struck a similar tone the next day in a letter he sent to Assemblymember Tasha Boerner (D-Encinitas), who chairs the Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance, also announcing his organization’s move to a neutral position: “We appreciate the author’s office and sponsors engagement and willingness to work with local government stakeholders on this bill to accept a variety of suggested amendments.”

Said Joel Paramo, spokesperson for the Greater Bakersfield Chamber (of Commerce), which supports AB 470: “We can’t speak for those organizations directly, but it’s clear the bill evolved in response to stakeholder feedback. The addition of stronger safeguards, particularly around service continuity in rural areas, gave regulators more authority to ensure that no community is left behind. AB 470 advances critical infrastructure modernization while supporting emergency response, digital access, and regulatory clarity for small and mid-sized businesses. That combination of public safety protections and economic benefits likely helped build broader alignment.”

AB 470 still faces a mountain of other critics; more than 50 organizations were listed as opposing it in its latest bill analysis, by the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications.

The opponents, which include such big hitters as the California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Federation of Teachers, continue to reiterate concerns that abandoning the carrier of last resort policy could leave some residents without reliable telephone service.

AB 470 advances critical infrastructure modernization while supporting emergency response, digital access, and regulatory clarity for small and mid-sized businesses.

The July 11 analysis quotes a statement from those unions as well as the Communication Workers of America and the California Alliance for Retired Americans that criticizes the bill for not leaving “the duty to provide universal access to safe, reliable, and affordable service to the market.”

“This would put current and future customers at risk of losing service and grant companies the ability to decide what communities to serve and which to ignore,” the organizations said. “It would also put union jobs across the state at risk, accelerating a loss of good jobs in the industry. For phone and broadband service to be available to all who ask for it, the COLR rule must be maintained and enforced.”

AB 470 passed off the Assembly floor in late June on a 58-2 vote, after the coalition mollified the three county orgs. It also passed out of the Senate Judiciary committee in July on a 9-1 vote. But the number of legislators opting not to vote (19 and 7, respectively) suggests lingering reticence toward the proposal, even with the headway the coalition has made.

The bill is expected to be heard in Senate Appropriations shortly after recess ends in next week.