Kings County pauses action on AT&T-backed AB 470 amid rural 911, service concerns

The Kings County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously April 8 to pause action on a letter concerning Assembly Bill 470 and to redirect the letter to AT&T for further revisions after county staff and residents raised concerns the bill could remove AT&T’s obligations as a carrier of last resort for critical telephone services such as 911 and lifeline access.

Deputy County Administrative Officer Matthew Boyette, representing Kings County administration, told the board AB 470 is sponsored by AT&T and would relieve the company of its statutory obligation in some designated areas. "AB 470 ... would leave places such as the Armona census-designated place, Avenal, Grangeville, Hanford, Hardwick, Home Garden, Kettleman City, Lemoore Station, Lemoore, Stratford and portions near Corcoran without a carrier that is legally obligated to provide that critical service," Boyette said, listing communities named in the county review.

Boyette and supervisors flagged two chief risks: (1) removal of a legal duty to provide basic voice service, including access to 911 and lifeline programs in designated un- or underserved areas, and (2) no statutory obligation requiring a carrier that relinquishes the duty to repair infrastructure after damage (for example, in a natural disaster), potentially leaving residents without emergency connectivity.

Aubrey Tone, an AT&T consultant for the Central Valley region, asked the board to pause formal opposition while AT&T continues stakeholder discussions and promised to return with changes. "Our AT and T team appreciates the prior collaboration between AT and T and the county on important initiatives, including broadband and wireless efforts within the county," Tone said, and said AT&T was working with legislators, rural counties, public safety officials and community representatives on bill changes expected in the coming weeks.

Public commenters and several supervisors said the current draft appears to shift disproportionate risk to rural communities. Supervisors described conversations at the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) that raised similar alarms.

Motion and vote: The board approved a motion to redirect the letter to AT&T and pause taking final action on the consent-calendar letter to allow time for the company to address concerns. The clerk recorded a 5-0 roll-call vote in favor (Joe Neves: yes; Richard Valle: yes; Doug Berbuon: yes; Rusty Robinson: yes; Robert Thayer: yes).

What’s next: AT&T’s consultant said the company would take the board’s feedback back to its legislative team and return with proposed adjustments. County staff and supervisors said they expected further outreach and a short pause to let negotiated changes be reviewed before the board makes a final position.

Why it matters: County staff and speakers emphasized that the bill, as drafted, could remove a firm obligation to maintain life‑safety telephone service in parts of rural Kings County and potentially leave residents without guaranteed 911 access or timely repair of damaged communications infrastructure.

Ending: The board recorded its opposition on the record for the current draft and directed staff to hold the consent‑calendar letter in abeyance while AT&T returns with revisions. County staff said they will coordinate follow-up briefings with the board when updated language is available.