Phone and cable TV services are required to do certain things that were considered to be in the public interest. Phone companies were required to put in place special infrastructure for priority emergency calls. TV companies were required to carry local broadcast channels if the channel asked for it. Historically this made sense, when the cable networks were built in the US* they were providing totally different services, so it made sense for them to be subject to different regulations.
However since then techology has changed, you can use the phone over your cable modem using VOIP and you can watch TV over your telco provided internet connection and you can watch TV and use VOIP over your IP based fiber connection. In many cases the VOIP and IPTV services are even bundled with the internet connection.
So you have three groups of companies providing effectively the same services but subject to vastly different regulations. IMO there is a need to decide if those regulations are still in the public interest and if they are deemed to be in the public interest to figure out how to apply them fairly to last mile communication providers who use vastly different infrastructures.
So I would agree with you that the regs need to be reviewed and updated but I also agree with the GP that google seem to want a privilage that is given to telcos and cablecos without taking on the responsibilities that come with being either being a telco or begin a cableco and I could see why existing telcos and cablecos would be rightly pissed off about that.
* Here in the UK things played out a bit differently, our cable companies were also phone companies from the start and ran analog phone pairs alongside the cable TV coax.