California says AT&T lied to FCC in attempt to shut off old phone network

California’s accusation that AT&T misled federal regulators about its plans to decommission an aging phone network underscores a broader struggle over the future of telecommunications infrastructure—and who gets to decide its fate. The dispute centers on AT&T’s push to shut down its legacy copper-wire phone system, known as the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), in favor of modern fiber and wireless networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has entertained AT&T’s petitions to bypass state oversight, arguing that the transition is inevitable and state regulations are holding back progress. But California’s allegation that AT&T lied to the FCC suggests deeper tensions: Is the company rushing to dismantle a critical system before ensuring reliable alternatives are in place, or is it merely seeking regulatory efficiency? The stakes here extend beyond AT&T’s profit motives. The PSTN, despite its obsolescence in some eyes, remains a lifeline for millions—particularly rural communities, low-income households, and emergency services that rely on landlines during power outages or internet failures. Telecommunications companies have long sought to decommission these networks, citing high maintenance costs and shifting consumer demand. Yet critics warn that such moves could leave vulnerable populations stranded, especially as reliability concerns mount around newer technologies. California’s intervention reflects broader state-level resistance to corporate-driven deregulation, a trend seen in other states like New York and Minnesota, where officials have pushed for stricter safeguards before approving shutdowns. What happens next could hinge on whether the FCC sides with California or AT&T. If regulators side with the company, other states may follow suit, accelerating the PSTN’s phase-out without uniform protections. But if California’s allegations gain traction, the FCC could impose stricter oversight, delaying decommissioning plans while forcing AT&T to demonstrate robust backup systems. The outcome may also influence other tech policy battles, where federal preemption often clashes with state consumer protections. For now, the question remains: Who bears responsibility for ensuring no one is left behind in the rush to modernize—corporations, regulators, or state governments? The answer will shape the future of telecommunications access in America.