In a 13-page letter to the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday, the carrier again said that Google should play by the same rules as its telecom competitors. AT&T also took issue with the search giant’s claim that Google Voice restricts calls to certain rural areas to avoid the so-called traffic pumpers that route calls there to drive up charges.

“Contrary to the public pronouncements of Google and its allies, Google’s rural call blocking regime is not limited to Google simply blocking calls to ‘adult sex chat lines’ and ‘free’ conference calling services to avoid high access charges,” wrote AT&T’s senior vice president, Bob Quinn, in the letter to the FCC’s wireline bureau. “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.”

My God. Google, the company whose business philosophy proudly proclaims “you can make money without doing evil,” blocking calls to small businesses? To Benedictine nuns? Don’t be evil?

Don’t be evil, my ass.

“We can now see the power of Internet-based applications providers to act as gatekeepers who can threaten the ‘free and open’ Internet,” Quinn continues. “Google’s double standard for ‘openness’–where Google does what it wants while other providers are subject to Commission regulations–is plainly inconsistent with the goal of preserving a ‘free and open’ Internet ecosystem.”

That established, Quinn goes in for the kill, arguing that the FCC should regulate the search giant not just on the wires, but on the Web as well.

“Google’s call blocking begs an even more important question that the Commission must consider as it evaluates whether to adopt rules regarding Internet openness,” he writes. “If the Commission is going to be a ’smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet,’ then shouldn’t its ‘beat’ necessarily cover the entire Internet neighborhood, including Google? Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?”

An interesting question. And one for which Google (GOOG) is presumably already preparing a long-winded answer. This is far from over yet, and we’ll continue to go round and round until the FCC puts a stop to it.

The gMove app exports email, contacts and calendar information stored in Microsoft (MSFT) Outlook to Google’s online services. LimitNone apparently developed it with Google’s help and the understanding that the company had no intention of offering a competing product. But at some point, Google changed its mind. And it built Google Email Uploader–allegedly using LimitNone’s trade secrets. “Google claims its core philosophy is ‘Don’t be evil’ but, simply put, they invited us to work with them, to trust them–and then stole our technology,” said LimitNone’s CEO, Ray Glassmann.

A harsh accusation. And likely a tough one to prove. LimitNone never bothered to patent gMove. And beyond that, it’s hard to believe Google is so lacking in engineering resources and expertise that it would purloin an email migration tool.

Now that Google (GOOG) has demonstrated that you can, in fact, make money without doing evil, it’s apparently willing to admit you can make even more without lending much credence to silly informal corporate mottos. Google’s moral relativism in quotations below.

2008

‘Don’t be evil’ is misunderstood. We don’t have an ‘Evilmeter’ we can sort of apply–you know–what is good and what is evil. … The rule allows for conversation. I thought when I joined the company this was crap… it must be a joke. I was sitting in a room in [the] first six months… talking about some advertising… and someone said that it is evil. It stopped the product. It’s a cultural rule, a way of forcing the conversation especially in areas that are ambiguous.”

–Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt, June 11, 2008

It really wasn’t like an elected, ordained motto. I think that ‘Don’t Be Evil’ is a very easy thing to point at when you see Google doing something that you personally don’t like; it’s a very easy thing to point out, so it does get targeted a lot.”

–Google VP Marissa Mayer, April 15, 2008

2006

Many, if not most, of you here know that one of Google’s corporate mantras is “Don’t be evil.” Some of our critics–and even a few of our friends–think that phrase arrogant, or naïve or both. It’s not. It’s an admonition that reminds us to consider the moral and ethical implications of every single business decision we make.”

–Google VP of Global Communications and Public Affairs Elliot Schrage, Feb. 15, 2006

We actually did an evil scale and decided not to serve at all was worse evil.”

–-Google CEO Eric Schmidt on the company’s decision to offer a censored version of its search services in China, Jan. 30, 2006

2005

I think it’s much better than Be Good or something. When you are making decisions, it causes you to think. I think that’s good.”

–Google co-founder Larry Page, “The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture,” 2005

2002

Evil is what Sergey says is evil.”

–-Google CEO Eric Schmidt, December 2002

Sources involved in the merger review tell TechConfidential that the commission is close to approving the $3.1 billion acquisition–with no conditions. An announcement is expected as early as next week, with the deal likely to close soon afterward.

This despite the protestations of privacy advocates, Google rivals, and a faintly hysterical letter penned by two U.S. senators from Wisconsin and Utah.

What is surprising is 23andMe’s pedigree. It was established by Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s wife, Ann Wojcicki. More surprising still, $2.6 million of Google’s investment in 23andMe is essentially a repayment of a loan Brin made to the company as part of some interim debt financing.

Now, clearly this investment makes sense for Google, and Brin did recuse himself from all discussions of it. That said, friends-and-family transactions like these almost always spark charges of nepotism. Not a good thing for a closely scrutinized public company, especially one with an “evil scale.”