What do Cliff Stearns, John Shimkus and Fred Upton have in common?

They're all members of the House telecommunications subcommittee, and they've each publicly accused Google of having "duped" the Federal Communications Commission by "gaming" a recent multibillion-dollar auction of wireless frequencies, shortchanging federal coffers.

They also have this in common: Each has received more than $100,000 in campaign contributions over their careers from telephone and cable interests locked in a battle with Google over the use of those frequencies.

AT&T is each of the lawmaker's top career campaign contributor, donating more than $200,000 to the candidates during their tenures in office, according to the Center For Responsive Politics' OpensSecrets.org website. Verizon, BellSouth, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the principal trade association of the cable television industry, we other major campaign contributors.

The frequencies auction raised almost $20 billion for the federal government, about twice the amount expected before bidding began in January. The congressmen, however, assert that the government could have netted even more if the F.C.C. had used different auction rules. They have not called for the auction to be invalidated.

Steve Tomaszewski, a spokesman for Shimkus, said the lawmaker was concerned that Google "played fast and loose with the spirit of the rules," adding that he was "sure" that AT&T's campaign contributions "did not have anything to do with his comments." Representatives of Stearns and Upton didn't respond promptly to requests for comment.

Verizon Wireless won the auction for the coveted C block licenses in March with a $4.7 billion bid. Its bid came after Google met the $4.6 billion reserve price, triggering F.C.C. rules requiring the winner of the spectrum to let customers mix and match wireless handsets and applications on any service using those frequencies.

The lawmakers argue that Google acted in bad faith by never intending to win the auction outright, but intending instead to simply trigger the "open access" provisions. This, they contend, deprived taxpayers of billions of dollars, because Google didn't have to win the auction to achieve its goal, and because other major bidders – including AT&T as well as Verizon Wireless – were reluctant to offer more because the "open access" provision would deny them the monopoly right to sell electronics that operate on those frequencies.

In testimony before the subcommittee, F.C.C. Chairman Kevin Martin, also a Republican, denied that his agency had been duped. "My goal was to make sure that whoever won the C-block had an open platform," he said.

Google supported the open access because it would let consumers use any wireless device or software on the system as long as it doesn't harm the network. That would benefit Google, which is ramping up its Android open source mobile platform.

Established wireless interests are none too excited by that prospect, because it could break their stranglehold on how consumers use cellphones.

Verizon has not commented on the congressmen's charges, but Google dismissed them.

"Consumers were the big winner in the auction, not any company," said Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich. "This auction generated not only a record amount for the U.S. Treasury, but also historic new rights for wireless consumers as a direct result of Google's bidding. By any measure, that's a huge success for consumers, and we're proud of our role in helping make that happen."

Art Brodsky, spokesperson for Public Knowledge, a consumer rights group that lobbied for the open access rules, called the lawmakers' charges "ridiculous."

"The F.C.C. wanted Google to enter the auction more than Google wanted to enter it," Brodsky said. "Google put in a bid sufficient to trigger open access provisions that will help consumers," he said.

Silicon Valley-based tech analyst Rob Enderle also scoffed at the lawmakers' charges, noting that Google is currently sitting on a $15 billion cash hoard.

"If Google had won the auction they would have paid, but they got the result they wanted for free," Enderle said. "And I doubt anyone involved didn't realize what their goal was."