As a result of the appeal, the FCC’s order stands, allowing phone companies to retire copper lines in the transition to fibre.
Background: In November 2017, the FCC passed an order called “Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment”, designed to reduce regulatory requirements on providers wishing to retire their copper networks. The ruling repealed an order of 2015 (“Technology Transition Order”), passed by the previous FCC under the last Democrat administration, which required incumbent phone providers to notify consumers and businesses before abandoning their copper networks. The rules also forced phone providers to obtain FCC permission before ripping out a community’s copper lines, and required them to consider how the service change would impact a community’s network, including emergency services and home alarm systems.
The appeal lacks standing: In December 2017, four consumer advocacy groups appealed the order, arguing that it violated the Communications Act, and that The FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by ignoring the extensive record gathered throughout the proceedings, simply rejecting without explanation arguments and data it found inconvenient. The consumer groups noted that tens of millions of Americans still depend on legacy telephone systems, and that many devices such as pacemakers and alarm systems do not work on new digital technologies. On 23 January 2020, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the appeal lacked standing on legal grounds, and denied the petition without discussing the merits.
The consequences: As a result of the court’s decision, the FCC’s 2017 order stands, thereby allowing phone companies to retire or abandon their copper lines without notifying the customers and communities they serve. Under the repealed 2015 ruling, operators had an obligation to support essential non-voice services in the transition to fibre. The ruling was welcomed by the FCC’s chairman, Ajit Pai, who labelled it as a win for American consumers in facilitating the transition to “networks of tomorrow”. The appellants were disappointed, and said they will consider other avenues to pursue to make sure all Americans have “affordable, reliable access to critical communications infrastructure”.
