Calif. IP Transition Bill Amended, but Consumer Groups Still Oppose
Californians about to lose copper phone connections with no alternative would have two months to protest, under an amended IP transition bill authorizing telcos to end the legacy service in 2020. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Evan Low (D), submitted a…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
revised AB-2395 Monday. The amended bill increases to 60 days -- from 30 in the original bill -- the number of days a customer has, upon learning that legacy service will be discontinued, to ask the California Public Utilities Commission to review the availability of an alternative service. As before, if the CPUC finds there's no alternative, it could order the telco ending service to continue providing voice service to the customer for 12 months after withdrawal. If after 12 months, there's still no alternative service available, the bill would now require -- rather than merely authorize -- the CPUC to order telcos to continue providing voice service to affected customers until an alternative service is available. The amended bill also specifies in more detail what information a telco must provide in notices to customers that they plan to end legacy service. AB-2395 is pending before the California State Assembly Appropriations Committee. The amendments don’t make the bill much better for consumers, said Regina Costa, telecommunications policy director for The Utility Reform Network in California. “AT&T is using all of the lobbyists that money can buy to try to sell a skimpy, ill-conceived bill intended to side-step the FCC's careful IP Transition process and to prevent the state regulator from doing its job,” she emailed. “The amendments do nothing to fix the fundamental problems with the bill. The clear intent of the bill is to destroy universal telephone service. Millions of Californians will be irreparably harmed if this bill passes.” The bill's supporters say the legislation will speed California toward an all-digital future (see 1604120036).