If you haven’t been keeping up, let us bring you up to speed. Back during the summer, Apple told Google that it couldn’t play with its favorite toy in the whole wide world, the iPhone. Mommy FCC stepped in and asked what was going on. Apple said Google was trying to break its favorite toy. Google cried that Apple wouldn’t let it play with its toy, and AT&T played innocent. Then for some reason, AT&T called Google a doo-doo head, which Google denied. Apple turns around and says it doesn’t want to be friends with Google anymore. Mommy FCC decides that maybe it should keep an eye on Google.

Now AT&T is saying that not only is Google a doo-doo head, but Mommy FCC should check it for cooties as well. That is, the FCC should take a closer look at Google Voice, which it is already investigating.

In the letter (PDF), AT&T counters Google’s claim that Voice only blocks phone sex operators and free conference calling services.

“In fact, Google is blocking calls to, among others, an ambulance service, church, bank, law firm, automobile dealer, day spa, orchard, health clinic, tax preparation service, community center, eye doctor, tribal community college, school, residential consumers, a convent of Benedictine nuns, and the campaign office of a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives,” the letter said.

Wow, that’s a lot of stuff. AT&T later goes on to say that phone networks should be as neutral as Google and the FCC want the internet to be. Which is odd, since phone networks have never been terribly neutral. Case in point, have you ever been charged extra to access a Japanese web site?

The FCC seems to agree. The Washington Post’s Cecilia Kang said that an anonymous FCC source said the inquiry into Google Voice will not consider net neutrality rules, but rather just old-fashioned telecommunications rules.

Oddly enough, AT&T maintains in the letter that it is against net neutrality.

Billshrink.com, a site that helps consumers find ways to save on their cell phone bills, filed its comment on Tuesday.

“The plans are complicated,” said Billshrink president and co-founder Schwark Satyavolu, “and there’s no way for consumers to stay on top of that.”

Billshrink said in its statement that the average cellphone subscriber overspends by $300 a year. It continued, saying that it had found $800 million in potential cell savings in the past five months.

Billshrink calls for more transparent billing, including clearer information about contract termination and coverage, as well as better information on how to modify existing contracts.

Considering that CNET has a five-part article on how to understand your cell phone bill, we’d say that maybe Billshrink has a point. Then again, the very existence of a service like Billshrink kinda proves its own point.

The issue at hand is Google’s blocking of calls to select rural areas. Rural carriers are allowed to charge high termination fees. Fees that carriers such as AT&T are usually forced to absorb. Some businesses, such as sex hotlines and conference calling services, set up shop in these places to take advantage.

However, the FCC does not allow phone companies to block outgoing phone calls. AT&T cried foul after the FCC launched an inquiry into Apple’s blocking of the Google Voice app for the iPhone, saying that Google was not only violating FCC regulations, but its own net neutrality principles.

Here’s the problem, though. Google Voice is NOT a phone company. There are some very important distinctions:

1. Google Voice is a supplementary phone service. You must still provide your own connection.
2. Unlike AT&T, Google Voice is a free service, at least for domestic calls.
3. Presently, Google Voice is by invitation only, and is not available to the general public.
4. Google Voice is 100% optional. Phone companies are usually monopolies.
5. Google does not accept public funding.

Google’s Richard Whitt echoed many of these points yesterday in a blog post. But he also makes a couple of overstated claims about how Google Voice is helping veterans and the homeless. Google, don’t spoil your charitable efforts by trying to use them as some sort of regulatory shield. There’s no class in that.

What do you think? Should Google Voice be regulated like a traditional phone company, or be treated differently? Give us your two cents below.

Full disclosure: I am a Google Voice user.

The entire interview (MP3 link) clocks in at 55 minutes, and the Times was nice enough to split it up by topic. But if you don’t have that kind of time, here’s the highlights:

• He calls the DTV transition, “largely a success,” despite a few lingering issues.
• Says that the FCC will do a review of media ownership and consolidation next year.
• Says he’s trying to institute a “culture of excellence” at the FCC.
• Confirms that net neutrality will apply to both wired and wireless networks, but there will be differences due to technical reasons.
• Restates that “we need more spectrum,” for wireless broadband.
• On applying decency rules to mediums other than broadcast television and radio: “The FCC shouldn’t enter the content world lightly, and the FCC should understand that it’s a government agency very much bound by the First Amendment.”
• Calls for greater transparency in cellular billing.
• Called AT&T’s change of heart on VoIP over 3G, a “very welcome development.”

"This bill protects citizens. It provides another means to stop the use of illegal cell phones by allowing prison on a case-by-case basis to use cell jammers. It will help make our neighborhoods safe and give prisons another necessary tool they need," said Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, who co-sponsored the bill.

Maryland inmate Patrick Albert Byers Jr. used a contraband phone to have a prosecution witness killed in 2007.

You might be surprised at how often prisoners get their hands on cell phones. In 2008, 2,809 were confiscated in California, 1,861 in Mississippi, and 847 in Maryland.

The bill still needs to pass the House of Representatives. If it does, it will require the FCC to designate rules and conduct field tests to block phones in prison while not interfering with outside signals. If a prison’s jammer interferes with outside service, it will be deactivated until the FCC corrects the problem.

"I believe that the biggest threat to the future of mobile in America is the looming spectrum crisis," Genachowski said.

Plans for the MBA include loosening regulations to ensure faster cell tower construction, freeing up more of the radio spectrum for wireless data, fact-based decision making, and applying net neutrality regulations to wireless carriers.

And if Genachowski’s prediction of 400 petabytes of monthly wireless bandwidth usage by 2013 is accurate, there may well be an oncoming crisis. Just one petabyte is equivalent to 1,048,576 gigabytes, or 1,024 terabytes. To put it more simply, 400 petabytes would be the size of at least 44,62,000 DVDs.

One of Genachowski’s ideas to stem the crisis is “shot clock” reform that would dramatically cut the time communities would have to protest new tower construction.

Ideally, this would speed up the deployment of new towers. Combined with additional cellular airspace, the rollout of next-generation 4G wireless broadband networks would be on track to handle the massive influx of data.

But assuming Genachowski can enact his agenda, would it even be enough?