Seems AT&T (T) feels that Google’s Google Voice Internet call-forwarding service violates federal rules designed to ensure that phone companies connect all calls. From the company’s letter:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities. By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services. Google casually dismisses the Bureau’s Order, claiming that Google Voice “isn’t a traditional phone service and shouldn’t be regulated like other common carriers.” But in reality, “Google Voice” appears to be nothing more than a creatively packaged assortment of services that are already quite familiar to the Commission….

[The FCC] cannot, through inaction or otherwise, give Google a special privilege to play by its own rules while the rest of the industry, including those who compete with Google, must instead adhere to [FCC] regulations.

AT&T’s letter comes just days after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality regulations that will apply to both wireline and wireless platforms. Interestingly, it also follows an FCC investigation into the rejection/delay of Google Voice for the iPhone.

UPDATE:

Google’s responded to AT&T’s letter in a post to the company blog, pointing out the differences between Google Voice and traditional phone service and questioning AT&T’s motives for appealing to the FCC.

“AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly,” Richard Whitt, the company’s Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote. “The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers–not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.”

So says Pali Research, which in a research note this week argued that AT&T (T) should be very worried about the prospect of Verizon adding the iPhone to its handset lineup.

“As the iPhone exclusivity period rolls off between AT&T Wireless and Apple, a material number of AT&T customers will flock to Verizon’s superior network,” the firm states. “We estimate that nearly a third of AT&T’s post-paid customers are being retained by AT&T primarily because of the iPhone exclusivity.”

An unsettling thought for AT&T, whose five-year agreement to be the iPhone’s sole U.S. provider is reportedly set to expire in 2010. Especially since there are several compelling reasons for Apple to offer the iPhone to Verizon (VZ).

For one thing, the move would give Apple access to about 80 million new Verizon customers. For another, it would bring the iconic device to a carrier that might, you know, reasonably support all its features, a carrier whose LTE “4G” network isn’t four-to-five years off, a carrier whose name doesn’t elicit laughter and jeers at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference.

So why extend AT&T’s exclusive deal? If there’s a good reason, Pali doesn’t see it. The research house is betting on the iPhone coming to Verizon. And when it does…

“We expect AT&T Wireless net subscriber additions to fall to less than 1 million in 2010 from more than 4 million in 2008. With an LTE-based iPhone in 2011, we believe Verizon could take even more market share resulting in a contraction in AT&T’s subscriber base in that year.”

That’s the word from Gartner, which back in March was claiming the decline would be just 3.8 percent. The research outfit said Tuesday that it expects tech spending to fall to $3.2 trillion this year, down from $3.4 trillion in 2008. And it sees all four major segments of IT–hardware, software, IT services and telecommunications–suffering revenue declines in 2009 (click on chart below).

“The forecast decline in spending growth for the hardware and software segments in 2009 has almost stabilized, and only minor downward revisions have been made to these forecasts this quarter,” said Gartner’s Richard Gordon. “However, the full impact of the global recession on the IT services and telecommunications sectors is still emerging, and forecast growth in these areas has been further reduced significantly.”

That said, the company sees a rebound of 2.3 percent in 2010.

Gartner (IT) is the latest research firm to temper its projections for information technology spending this year in light of the ever-souring economy. Last week Forrester (FORR) lowered its expectations for 2009, saying the first two quarters of the year were worse than expected and that the decline will carry out for the rest of the year. It did, however, say we can expect a rebound in 2010.

Ugly, even more so considering this is the company’s ninth consecutive quarterly loss since it was created in 2006.

“While expected, given seasonality and tough market conditions, we are not pleased with the operating loss incurred in the first quarter,” said CEO Ben Verwaayen. “Our guidance for the year remains unchanged and we are taking appropriate actions….There’s lots of work we still need to do.”

Grim news for the once-darling tech company, which was worth about $250 billion.

Its market value today: about $275 million.

Fairchild (FCS) reduced its guidance as well. It had been expecting $338 million to $360 million in sales for its fiscal fourth quarter. Now it expects just $320 million.

Fairchild is the latest semiconductor company to temper its estimates as demand for the computers and telecommunications gear in which its chips are used contracts. Earlier this week, Texas Instruments (TXN), National Semi (NSM) and Broadcom (BRCM) all cut their projections because of lousy market conditions.

This latest swing of the ax brings total job cuts at Alcatel-Lucent (ALU) to about 22,500 since the 2006 merger that created it. And though the company will be leaner and meaner for it, that new found agility won’t count for much without a shift in business strategy bold enough to reverse the brutal reduction in market share and market capitalization Alcatel-Lucent has suffered. And an oblique and, frankly, baffling mention of Web 2.0, does not a business strategy make.

Alcatel-Lucent’s plan is to “combine the trusted capabilities of the network environment with the creative communications services of the Web (Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and beyond).” What the hell does that mean?

Yesterday Dodd, along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) said they plan to take steps to block FISA as long as it grants retroactive immunity to telecoms complicit in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. “No one seriously wants to financially cripple our telecommunications industry,” Dodd said in remarks before the Senate last night. “The point is to bring checks and balances back to domestic spying. Setting that precedent would hardly require a crippling judgment. It’s much more troubling, though, that our director of National Intelligence even bothers to speak to ‘liability protection for private-sector entities.’ This isn’t the Secretary of Commerce we’re talking about, but the head of our nation’s intelligence efforts. For that matter, how does that even begin to be relevant to letting this case go forward? Since when did we throw entire suits out because the defendant stood to lose too much? It astounds me that some can speak in the same breath about national security and bottom lines. Approve immunity, and Congress will state clearly: The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more lawless you are entitled to be. A suit against you is a danger to the Republic! And so, at the rock-bottom of its justifications, the telecoms’ advocates are essentially arguing that immunity can be bought.”

And, according to MAPlight’s analysis of PAC campaign contributions from Verizon (VZ), AT&T (T) and Sprint (S), it can.

To prevail, Dodd’s filibuster must be supported by 41 of the 100 senators. If its opponents can muster 60 votes–a distinct possibility given the number of Democrat’s who’ve compromised with the Republican White House on this issue–it will fail. And the 40 or so lawsuits over civil-liberties violations arising from the Bush administration’s controversial domestic wiretap program will be dismissed.

We compete with Comcast with delivery of content over the Internet. What we have here is a horse race and in this contest, Comcast owns the race track, in fact, the only track in town. They also own a horse. We are being told they are only slowing down our horse by a few seconds.”

–Gilles BianRosa, CEO of video provider Vuze

The network-management hearing at Harvard University this morning is turning out to be something of a comcastrophe for Comcast (CMCSA). Called before the Federal Communications Commission today to explain why it has been “throttling” or limiting BitTorrent traffic on its network, Comcast was criticized out of the gate for the practice.

Seems some folks don’t buy the company’s claim that throttling is necessary to prevent file-sharing traffic from consuming too much bandwidth. And others–specifically, advocates of Net neutrality–feel it’s outright discriminatory. “The Internet is as much mine and yours as it is Verizon’s and AT&T’s and Comcast’s,” said U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in his opening remarks to the commission. “The commission should be wary of the need of a significant network management position. Perhaps if we had competition, this wouldn’t be such an issue.”Such intercession into a user’s access to the Internet should not result in … the transformation of BitTorrent into BitTrickle. That’s a problematic result … whether it is purposeful or purely circumstantial.”

Comcast, for its part, insists results like those described by Markey aren’t problematic at all, but necessary. The company must “shape” file-sharing traffic to ease the strain on its network. “Independent research has shown that it takes as few as 15 active BitTorrent users uploading content in a particular geographic area to create congestion sufficient to degrade the experience of the hundreds of other users in that area,” David L. Cohen, an executive vice president of Comcast, explained in written testimony. “Bandwidth-intensive activities not only degrade other less-intense uses, but also significantly interfere with thousands of Internet companies’ businesses. Far from managing our network in a discriminatory way to benefit our own offerings–other than managing our network to make our high-speed Internet service faster and better–our limited network-management practices ensure that everyone else’s applications and services, even those that may compete with our services and use P2P protocols, work.”