Industry Urges California Public Utilities Commission to Quickly Move in COLR Relief

AT&T advocated for the CPUC to move quickly and relieve carriers from COLR obligations so they can "invest more heavily in fixed and mobile broadband network expansion in California." The requirement "is not essential to every person in every part" of the state. The carrier also warned against calls from some commenters to continue with "asymmetrical regulatory burdens," saying the majority of households in its California service territory have left traditional phone service for "alternative voice services, primarily from providers other than the" incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).

Consolidated Communications said it's "hyperbolic" to claim that "ILECs 'built their networks using ratepayer money,'" and the commission should "disregard insinuations" that ILECs "owe a duty to continue fulfilling COLR obligations based on alleged historical regulatory advantages."

Still, the Rural County Representatives of California, an association of 40 counties, urged some caution with the timeline. The group said the CPUC should "consider how to adopt a deliberate pace to COLR relief requests," similar to rules adopted in Washington state, where relief applications are accepted at one time or limited to the number of affected customers per filing. "These guardrails would help ensure that any transition does not occur faster than the CPUC’s ability to assess risk, enforce conditions, and protect affected areas," the association said.

AT&T called on commission staff to "propose rules in the third quarter of this year to remove the COLR requirement in areas without people and, subject to a consumer challenge process, in well-served areas." The California Broadband & Video Association (CalBroadband) said COLR obligations should be limited to "existing COLRs in areas where there is no competition for voice services."

Additionally, CTIA urged the CPUC to not "involuntarily require a wireless provider to serve as a COLR." The group pushed back on calls for a "wireless coverage verification process" so wireless maps may be used in this proceeding. "CTIA reiterates that allegations regarding inaccurate wireless maps are unfounded and unfairly undermine confidence in a valuable tool for consumers to select the wireless provider that best meets their needs."

Meanwhile, the CPUC Public Advocates Office pushed back on industry comments. It said CalBroadband "incorrectly asserts" that the scoping memo of the proceeding limits the commission's ability to include broadband in its basic service definition. The office also opposed AT&T's and Consolidated's claim that "disaster and resiliency considerations should be excluded from the basic service definition and should instead be applied industry-wide." A service provider can offer broadband as a form of basic service as long as it "includes a voice-grade connection and meets the elements of basic service," the office said. A group of TDS companies had also backed excluding broadband from the definition of "basic service." The carriers said it would delay the proceeding due to legal disputes over tariff jurisdiction.

"The commission should continue the COLR obligation, but the technology used to meet the obligation can change if it provides all the elements of basic service," said The Utility Reform Network and Center for Accessible Technology in joint comments. The "core purpose of COLR" remains, they said: "As communications technology, infrastructure, and markets evolved, so has the COLR construct."

Likewise, the Small Business Utilities Advocates said COLR obligations shouldn't be removed "before affordability is guaranteed, historically marginalized communities are meaningfully included and represented, and a forward-looking policy framework is in place to support a just transition without weakening existing safeguards."