Technology news and discussion on TalkFuse.
AT&T loses key ruling in bid to stop offering basic phone service in California
A US federal judge has denied AT&T's request for a preliminary injunction that would have let it stop offering basic wireline phone service to new customers in California, dealing a setback to the company's efforts to exit the state's "Carrier of Last Resort" obligations. The ruling means AT&T must, for now, keep providing telephone service to any customer who requests it in its territory while the underlying lawsuit continues, a decision with significant implications for rural and low-income customers who rely on landlines.
AT&T sued California in May, arguing the state's rules are pre-empted by a Federal Communications Commission order permitting carriers to retire ageing copper networks. US District Judge Linda Lopez rejected the injunction request last week, finding AT&T had not shown it was likely to succeed on the merits. AT&T says it wants to disconnect roughly 184,000 residential and 15,000 business customers by June 2027 and claims it costs $1 billion annually to maintain its "century-old" network, but California's Attorney General and utilities regulator argue AT&T can meet its obligations using fibre rather than copper, and accused the company of using an "analog versus digital" argument to mask its real goal of shedding service obligations entirely. AT&T, which says it has already secured similar relief in 20 of its other 21 states, may still appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In short
- Judge denies AT&T's bid to halt California phone service obligations
- AT&T must keep serving new landline customers during ongoing litigation
- California says AT&T could use fibre instead of ageing copper lines
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
AT&T contends that requiring indefinite investment in century-old copper infrastructure is unreasonable when modern alternatives exist and federal regulators have already approved network retirements for other carriers. With $1 billion in annual maintenance costs, the company argues it should be permitted to transition customers to modern fibre-based service, pointing out that it has already obtained similar relief in twenty of its twenty-one other states, suggesting this represents sound regulatory policy and consistency.
The case against
California argues that AT&T's core obligation is ensuring all residents can access basic telephone service, not maintaining any particular technology, and that the company can fulfil this duty through modern fibre rather than abandoning vulnerable customers. Rural and low-income Californians depend on these services, and a profitable telecommunications firm should absorb the cost of providing basic connectivity through available infrastructure rather than exiting its service area entirely.
Explained simply
AT&T provides telephone services across America. In California, state law requires AT&T to act as a "Carrier of Last Resort", meaning it must provide basic landline phone service to anyone who requests it, no matter the cost to the company. AT&T now wants to stop offering this service, especially to new customers, claiming it costs too much to maintain its decades-old copper telephone network.
California's government argues that AT&T could provide phone service using newer fibre technology instead of ageing copper lines, and contends that the company is using the old network to avoid its service obligations. AT&T responds that a national regulator called the Federal Communications Commission has already permitted telecoms firms to retire copper networks, and that California cannot block this. The two sides are now locked in a court battle over whose rules take precedence.
This issue affects many rural and lower-income communities whose residents depend on landline phones for essential contact and emergency services. If AT&T succeeds in escaping its Carrier of Last Resort obligations in California, thousands of customers could lose access to phone service they rely on. The outcome may also influence similar disputes AT&T is having in other states.