If guarding consumers’ well-being is the goal, keeping them on obsolete copper landlines is an odd way to do it. As policymakers pursue nationwide efforts to build better communications networks, critics balk, arguing that upgrading means forfeiting emergency lifelines.
Last month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) paused Verizon’s upgrade proposal in several states, responding to concerns about consumers being left with poorer service. Earlier this summer, California likewise flexed its Carrier of Last Resort laws, which require one carrier to stay and provide service to an area if all others vacate it, to block AT&T’s planned network upgrades—a move currently challenged in court—stating it must provide “equivalent or better” service before decommissioning outdated networks.
The irony is that protecting consumers’ lifelines amounts to relegating them to yesteryear’s technology. If policymakers want better replacements built before retiring any landlines, they should allow communications providers to build better networks faster.
Copper-served landlines have traditionally been a symbol of reliability. Today, they also expose consumers to considerable drawbacks.
Landlines are costly. Outdated copper infrastructure is expensive to maintain, so carriers pass these costs to consumers. Landline subscribers were paying as much as 80 dollars per month for basic voice service last year; mobile subscribers pay as little as 50 dollars per month for talk, text, and some data.
Copper networks are also prime targets for theft. Copper fetches a high retail value, and vandals often cut into wiring looking for a quick buck. Whether by theft or natural disaster, broken copper lines knock out service for all downstream landlines, emergency or not.
Copper-served telephones also leave consumers vulnerable to scammers. On internet-based networks, calls and texts carry metadata, like digital fingerprints, that carriers can screen for bad actors. Copper’s technological limitations strip all those identifiers away, making it impossible for carriers to catch and block fraudulent callers over copper.
To top it all off, most consumers prefer smartphones anyway. Research finds that 78 percent of US adults are wireless-only users; over 40 million dropped their landline in the last five years. Modern voice service is often bundled with high-speed internet for a comparable monthly cost.
Additionally, modern technology is more resilient to outages. Fiber optic connections have built-in redundancies, smoothly rerouting data around outages. Meanwhile, wireless and satellite options transmit data directly to customers, avoiding wirelines entirely. Americans have long since voted with their feet and switched to modern networks.
Sadly, not everyone gets a choice. Long distances, rugged terrain, complex permitting processes at all levels of government, and staunch opposition to replacing landlines combine to make it uneconomical to deploy high-tech communications to the most remote consumer.
But while alternative technologies have grown more cost-effective at reaching the farthest households (fixed wireless access and low-earth orbit satellites both meet the FCC’s speed benchmarks), a thicket of government hoops to jump through has remained complex. Analysis shows the average project must wait four to five years for construction permits, delaying an estimated $1.5 trillion in economic value across telecommunications, energy, and other sectors. These are barriers keeping rural consumers stuck on copper, regardless of whether they prefer the safer, more powerful networks of modernity.
Such obstacles are fixable. If the goal is “equivalent or better” service before any copper is retired, states should make it easier to build such service in the first place. By reducing the regulatory burden and committing to quick, reasonable permit processing times, states can untie carriers’ hands to build more infrastructure faster.
Policymakers serious about reliable emergency lifelines should consider these common-sense reforms.
First, to remedy the long delays builders face in the permitting process, states should impose—and enforce—shot clocks on permit-issuing bureaucrats at both the state and local levels. By guaranteeing project approval or denial within a specified timeframe, lawmakers can make broadband development a surer investment for would-be builders and invite more coverage.
Another way to reduce the permitting burden on broadband builders is by putting limits on permitting fees. Many local governments use permitting fees to generate revenue, leading to arbitrarily high fees that discourage investment. Limiting permitting fees to only recoup administrative costs can further reduce the cost of upgrading networks.
Common sense rules like expedited approval for projects on previously approved land can save time and cut down on duplicative paperwork. Meanwhile, Dig-Once policies coordinate many carriers to deploy fiber lines together rather than burying each individually. And One-Touch-Make-Ready policies can similarly save time and resources by having a single contractor rearrange attachments on telephone poles to make room for more.
Research finds that these policies work. Iowa adopted dig-once and permitting reform policies in 2015 and saw a significant increase in fiber availability in rural towns. Undoubtedly, these areas don’t feel so much consternation when retiring copper networks— as they already have something better.
Opponents argue spotty connectivity cannot replace landlines, but connectivity would be less spotty with more towers, fiber, and satellites. To ensure rural consumers get access to equivalent or better service before carriers retire yesteryear’s technology, states shouldn’t make it so hard to build better networks.
Nate Karren is a Policy Analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. Follow Nate on X @NateKarrenOnX