Given its proximity to the Broomfield, Colo., headquarters of Level 3, there’s always a good chance that the Silicon Flatirons telecom conference will get a visit from Jim Crowe, Level 3’s CEO. He made the short drive up Hwy. 36 on Monday afternoon for a well-reasoned talk about long-term trends in communications that had several key takeaways, among them:

• Internet video use is here to stay, and will only increase going forward
• Bundling services with devices is yesterday’s strategy
• Legislators and regulators are right to be concerned about the potential for monopolistic practices by AT&T, Verizon and cable companies
• Net Neutrality violations could be handled better by the FTC than the FCC

According to Crowe, between 60 and 70 percent of the IP backbone provider’s traffic is currently video, a trend that he thinks will only increase, perhaps even substantially should applications like Cisco’s Telepresence take off. “It’s kind of a full employment act” for backbone providers, he joked.

While it’s not too hard to say Internet video will be more popular, Crowe did take a somewhat divergent tack by forseeing a future in which communications services, devices and applications will separate into different markets, much like they already have in the PC arena. The popularity of the tightly bundled iPhone aside, Crowe said that standard interfaces and operating systems for wireless devices will eventually produce more innovation by the best of each market breed, putting bundled plans “on the wrong side of economics.”

On Net Neutrality — a topic practically invented at the Silicon Flatirons conference — Crowe said that when it comes to possible monopoly abuses by the big carriers, “you ought to be worried” since the Bell companies “have a long history of abusing” their facility-based advantages. And while cable companies might have “a far less colorful legal history, competition is not in their DNA,” Crowe said.

However, that doesn’t mean Crowe is in favor of pre-emptive legislation, which most Net Neutrality proponents prefer. Instead, Crowe (like many other speakers at the conference) said abuses could be better monitored by the Federal Trade Commission, under existing anti-trust laws.

“I just think after 10 or 15 years of getting everything they want, consumers will not tolerate” anyone blocking or limiting their access to applications and content, he said. If there are violations, then “anti-trust courts are only a few lawyers away, and may be a lot more efficient than regulatory bodies, who have to react to politics.”

Paul Kapustka, former managing editor for GigaOM, now has his own blog at Sidecut Reports.

Verizon’s VoIP patents have become a lucrative source of income for the second-largest phone company in the U.S. After squeezing out $120 million from Vonage, the company has been filing patent infringement lawsuits against all comers — from tiny startups to cable giants like Cox. Today Verizon went after Charter Communications.

On the flip side, VoIP Inc., an Altamonte Springs, Fla.-based VoIP provider with a questionable business outlook, is almost out of gas. They owe Verizon about $8 million related to the settlement the two companies agreed to last year. As Fierce VoIP points out.

Unless Verizon believes in fairies, this money is as good as gone because the stock price is now at $0.008, creditors are already in the courts for big debts and VoIP Inc. is admitting it expects to have to write off its only real asset, its network business.

Convicted felon Steve Ivester was involved with VoIP Inc. during its early days when it was making a transition from tea company to Vonage competitor. Over the past 12 months, VoIP Inc.’s stock has tanked — from over $8 a share to less than a penny.

• The Times: Yahoo Seeks to Revive Merger with AOL
• Press Release: Sequans scores $28M for WiMax Chips
  
• NYTimes: Many Obstacles to Digital TV Reception, Study Says
• O’Reilly Radar: Reuters CEO Sees Semantic Web in Its Future
• Light Reading: Verizon Sues Charter Over VoIP Patents
• EETimes: Full Stream Ahead for Web on Mobiles

Like finding a $20 bill in your coat pocket at the beginning of winter, Sprint has “found” a potential source of revenue in its patent portfolio. While it will certainly be harder than reaching into a coat pocket, the beleaguered wireless carrier probably sees patent litigation as easier than its corporate turnaround.

After squeezing $80 million out of Vonage last year, Sprint has apparently decided that its 115 “voice over packet” patents might be its next cash cow. The carrier says it will sue four smaller phone companies — NuVox Communications, Broadvox Holdings, Big River Telephone Co. and Paetec Communications — for violating six of its patents associated with delivering voice over a data network. It is seeking damages and an injunction. Interestingly, the carrier didn’t try to negotiate with the providers before dropping the L-bomb on them. All of the carriers said they were reviewing the lawsuit and couldn’t comment at this time.

Considering that these six patents have been tried in the courts thanks to Vonage, Sprint is in a much stronger position when it comes to getting a licensing deal, which makes the fact that Sprint chose to go with a lawsuit interesting. It’s likely that when presented with the patent violations and a reasonable license fee, the companies could reach some common ground. Another VoIP company, VoiceGlo, was sued in 2005 along with Vonage, and negotiated an undisclosed license with Sprint covering its use of the patents.

That means Sprint is either going for the injunction (to shut down its competitors), or it is taking them to court in an effort to weaken them (by way of scoring a larger financial settlement). Either way, Sprint is playing hardball — and it isn’t alone.

After successfully coaxing a $120 million settlement out of Vonage last year, Verizon Communications is also asserting its VoIP patents against a competitor. Earlier this month, Verizon sued cable operator Cox Communications for infringing eight patents. Two of those patents are the same ones Verizon successfully defended against Vonage. Vonage may have had to pay millions, but it looks like the power its loss gives the incumbents might keep independent VoIP players paying for years.