Server Error in ‘/CRTCSubmissionMU’ Application.
Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Source Error:

Line 13:
Line 14:
Line 15: ‘ runat=”server”>Additional
Line 16:
Line 17:

Source File: w:\websites\support\wwwroot\CRTCSubmissionMU\Forms\Controls\ConfirmBanner.ascx Line: 15

Stack Trace:

[NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.]
ASP.forms_controls_confirmbanner_ascx.__DataBindinglnkbtnAdditional(Object sender, EventArgs e) in w:\websites\support\wwwroot\CRTCSubmissionMU\Forms\Controls\ConfirmBanner.ascx:15
System.Web.UI.Control.OnDataBinding(EventArgs e) +99
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind(Boolean raiseOnDataBinding) +206
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind() +12
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBindChildren() +204
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind(Boolean raiseOnDataBinding) +216
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind() +12
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBindChildren() +204
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind(Boolean raiseOnDataBinding) +216
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind() +12
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBindChildren() +204
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind(Boolean raiseOnDataBinding) +216
System.Web.UI.Control.DataBind() +12
Forms_Telecom.wizMain_ActiveStepChanged(Object sender, EventArgs e) +37
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Wizard.OnActiveStepChanged(Object source, EventArgs e) +105
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Wizard.MultiViewActiveViewChanged(Object source, EventArgs e) +30
System.Web.UI.WebControls.MultiView.OnActiveViewChanged(EventArgs e) +105
System.Web.UI.WebControls.MultiView.set_ActiveViewIndex(Int32 value) +408
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Wizard.set_ActiveStepIndex(Int32 value) +107
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Wizard.OnBubbleEvent(Object source, EventArgs e) +890
System.Web.UI.WebControls.WizardChildTable.OnBubbleEvent(Object source, EventArgs args) +17
System.Web.UI.Control.RaiseBubbleEvent(Object source, EventArgs args) +35
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.OnCommand(CommandEventArgs e) +115
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +163
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.System.Web.UI.IPostBackEventHandler.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +7
System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(IPostBackEventHandler sourceControl, String eventArgument) +11
System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(NameValueCollection postData) +33
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1746

Nice to see the CRTC either have their act together.

Canada, and to a certain extent the US have one big problem: There is just to much cable strung from pole to pole, fibre (as of now) is far to sensitive for that. The Europeans don’t have that problem, it’s all underground. In Asia, the have above ground wiring as well, far worse than ours, so their solution is to go wireless, and they are succeeding big time, they just adopted the European standards, took the best of it and got going. Here is my point on that: We are trying to re-invent the wheel…it’s all out there, and it’s out there for the taking!

I firmly believe that there is far more than meets the eye. The CRTC will stall the public as long as they can. In Rogers case, I am absolutely aghast with what this company gets away with, which leads me to believe that no matter how many times the CRTC is approached by the little guy, it will ultimately be a political decision, far removed from the legalistic double talk we have to endure now. Therefore, in my opinion, we have to tell our local MP in no uncertain terms what we think. I have done so and will continue to do so.

You see the CRTC issues licenses just as the LCBO issues out liquor licenses and the MTO issues driver licenses for the province of Ontario. My entire inquiry to the CRTC was to find out exactly the terms in which Bell Canada was given the license to cable Canada. Because just as with the LCBO, this licensing agency has the right to remove a liquor license from any bar/restaurant for failing to met its legal requirements of its liquor license. Just as Ontario drivers can face suspension or even the removal of their driver’s license for not meeting the legal requirements, which the MTO granted these drivers a license in the first place. My inquiry to the CRTC still stands, which is “what exactly are Bell Canada’s mandated requirements, which it must meet in order to retain its license(s) regarding providing transmission cabling to carry TV, Internet or any other services? Also in the CRTC licence that gives Bell Canada the right to provide transmission cabling, is there any proviso in the part of this license that requires the licensee to build/create enough capacity in order to meet the needs of its customers? If so, does the CRTC have the power to levy a fine and/or enforce the licensee to build/expand its cabling capacity to meet customer demand?”

Because basically as it stands now, the CRTC, unlike the LCBO and the MTO, grants licenses to cable Canada and the licensee can do anything it wants—legal or illegal without any repercussions! That’s like the LCBO, once it has given a license to a restaurant, this restaurant can now serve alcohol to minors, allow customers to take home unfinished bottles of wine, not have a legal patio for patrons and just sell alcohol to people standing near their restaurant, etc. Or imagine once having a drivers license from the MTO, there’s no demerit point system, you can get a 100 speeding tickets, drink & drive and even get convicted but whatever you do, the MTO will never revoke your drivers license!

So my inquiry to the CRTC goes to the heart of the matter, what are the terms that you granted Bell Canada the license to cable Canada? What must Bell legally do to perform up to standards to keep its license? What can Bell do if anything to put its license into jeopardy? Are there any specific terms regarding Bell being legally responsible to meet future customer needs? If so, does the CRTC have the capacity to fine Bell and/or force Bell to expand and build more cable? Because if none of this is relevant than the CRTC is no longer relevant, it becomes a paper tiger whose only purpose is to handout licenses like a dean hands out honorary university degrees to politicians and actors!

If the CRTC does have teeth than it must break a stranglehold on the monopolies whom are granted just one license for just one piece of technology to transmit electronic signals. Just as Ontario Hydro got broken up into logically parts (generation, transmitting electricity and selling power), the CRTC needs to break up the transmission of electronics signals logically by compartmental authority: the licence just to string cable, the license to transmit electronic signals (and a separate license for TV, phone and Internet) and finally the license to sell these electronic signals to the end consumer (again having retailers possessing separate licenses for TV, phone and Internet).

My point is that under this system of compartmental licenses, it breaks the back of our present-day monopolies that have total control of the transmission technology, unlimited control of what electronic signals its cable transmits and they still can choke off all the smaller retailers who are trying to complete with the monopolies to sell these electronic signals (TV, phone, and Internet) to the end consumer!

And in the end, what did I get for all my efforts to inquire about the CRTC’s licensing arrangement with Bell Canada? An irrelevant and condescending form letter!!!

Re: Jonathan
Correction to your post:
Bell has enough fiber to provide 10 times the capacity of their present users, companies and any other subscribers. In actuality they have been upgrading their fiber on an ongoing basis due to introduction of ExpressVU. The problem is that Bell’s last mile [copper lines to homes] is not designed to handle more than phone and Internet on same wire.

Adding ExpressVU TV is an insult to intelligence of any customer since something has to be dropped in order to provide this TV signal. You can do your own test as to speeds required by TV / HDTV by linking 2 home PC’s together, sharing this CD-ROM / DVD on first PC and watching it on the other PC. Using network monitoring software, like Network Activity Diagram, will show just how fast an Internet connection has to be to view a show or movie.

I bet you will find that present last mile wire is not even close to providing these services and that a separate wire and or fiber is needed. I also see the similar situation with Rogers or any provider that tries to push too many services across same wire. Hence Rogers, Bell and others are slowing down our Internet due to ulterior motives and causing everyone hardships when they should be running separate wire and or fiber to homes.

It does not need to be expensive due to present and readily available technologies which have been around for the past 7 years or more New technologies / excuses are just that and not necessary in the least. In another words large Telcos are taking us for a very expensive ride without the need for it. At the same time breaching privacy laws via DPI and other schemes, committing fraud on our bills, perpetuating lies in support calls and misdirection.

Outside of north america 5 mbps is already a joke.

In Quebec, Bells “upto” 5-meg service which gives the averahe joe anywhere from 1-meg to 3-meg is already a joke compared to videotrons offerings. This is why and how Bell lost its market share in Quebec.

I would resend your Email back to them and say they did not provide an answer other than provide you a form letter “canned” response.

Be direct and tell them you would like an answer, demand it. Or they will just toss you aside.

My Inquiry has to due with the exact license(s) that the CRTC has given Bell Canada. Also what exactly are Bell Canada’s mandated requirements, which it must meet in order to retain its license(s) regarding providing transmission cabling to carry TV, Internet or any other services? Also in the CRTC licence that gives Bell Canada the right to provide transmission cabling, is there any proviso in the part of this license that requires the licensee to build/create enough capacity in order to meet the needs of its customers? If so, does the CRTC have the power to levy a fine and/or enforce the licensee to build/expand its cabling capacity to meet customer demand?

My other inquiry regarding this matter is if the CRTC has the authority to force the split of not just Bell Canada but of the entire national licensing system regarding cabling? In that, a CRTC license for cabling as it stands presently does not differentiate between television, telephone and Internet traffic. It seems that the current problem facing the entire country is that when the CRTC grants a company the right to build and transmit a cabling network, this license does not differentiate between the various services that can be transmitted across this national cabling network. Thus a company such as Bell who initially built a cabling network just for the use of telephones, has now found itself overwhelmed and with not sufficient capacity to transmit many other services through this cabling network. Bell had initially met the future technological requirements of telephones, in that it overhauled its copper-wiring network and replaced it with a fiber optics network. However with the advent of Internet, Bell began using this very same fiber optics network, which was constructed solely for the purpose of transmitting telephone signals and now was transmitting Internet signals as well.

This was all fine when the Internet speed was slow and consumers’ modem speeds progressed from 14.4 to 28.8 to 56 (all in kilobits per second or Kbps). At this point Bell’s fiber optic network still had excess capacity to meet the need of Canada’s telephone and Internet users. However, in very short measure Internet use exploded and at the same time so did the speeds Internet providers were offering; initially starting at 256 Kbps then speeds climbed evermore faster 1 (megabits per second or Mbps), 2, 3, 4 and beyond 5 Mbps. The problem is that all these signals are being transmitted over the same fiber optics network that was just meant to solely carry telephone signals!

As a result, Bell’s fiber optics network is being overtaxed at certain times and this is just the beginning, we are only in the infancy of the Internet revolution! In five years from now, 5 Mbps will seem like a joke, Internet speeds will be so quick that today’s so-called advertised high-speed access will be akin to dial-up speed! Not only that but just as with the proliferation of cell phones technology, more and more entertainment downloaded features will be available for people’s computers. Once again, in only a few years from now, the city of Toronto is planning to build an extensive Wi-Fi (wireless) network. More and more people are purchasing laptop computers; you add that with a Wi-Fi network in Canada’s largest city, it will make today’s crisis look absolutely mild in comparison.

The crisis I’m talking about is Bell Canada’s culture of greed, which in turn has led to a mismanagement of its fiber optics network. The CRTC granted Bell a license to create a fiber optics network for the sole transmission of telephone signals. In Bell’s greed, it manufactured an industry of high-speed Internet carriers all using its fiber optics network. Bell and the rest of the industry it spawned mass advertised high-speed Internet for the average Canadians, charging exorbitant fees while just raking in the profits! But the one thing that Bell Canada is absolutely negligent for is not expanding the capacity of its fiber optics network! Now it is pointing the blame at the misuse of a handful of users that excessively download movies but the users aren’t to blame, it’s Bell Canada for legally neglecting its duty to provide sufficient capacity of its fiber optics network.

Under tort law, using the concept of the foreseeability of the reasonable man, had a reasonable man seen the explosiveness of the Internet, the amount of content available, the ever increasing speeds of access; would a reasonable man continue to market a service while not upgrading the capacity to allow more and more customers to use this service? It’s not the Internet users that are guilty of an offence; it’s Bell Canada who is knowingly negligent for marketing high-speed Internet access while not expanding its fiber optics network to meet its ever-increasing demand!

Bell Canada is guilty of negligence but it is turning around and blaming its consumers who are just using the system in the way it was designed. The Internet will forever be increasing in speed, in the amount of content to be shared and in its entertainment services it will provide. Bell Canada is guilty of rationing bandwidth of all Canadians during certain peak hours due to its inept lack of foresight to expand its fiber optics network. Bell’s rationale is to make the Internet fairer for everyone but that’s not the point! The issue isn’t justifying rationing of bandwidth, the issue is to assign blame and fix the problem before it gets worse! To quote an article (http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/business/article/266983); Cisco Systems forecasts global consumer traffic will quadruple from about two million terabytes in 2007 to nearly eight million by 2011. Peer-to-peer and video are expected to make up more than two thirds of the traffic.

I believe the first issue is to assign blame; Bell Canada is legally negligent for marketing a high-speed Internet industry while not expanding its fiber optics network. Second, I believe the future of Canada’s Internet services lay in the hands of the CRTC by finally separating licences for phone, TV and Internet services. The reason being, any company could support the carrying of all 3 transmission services on a single common piece of technology, however that doesn’t guarantee that this company’s technology could satisfy all its customers in the future. What if phone technology changed, or TV transmissions became more technologically burdensome? That would mean the same provider of all 3 services might have to ration the quality of one, two or even all three different services for a time until the network could be upgraded.

I believe that the CRTC needs to look into granting separate licenses for Internet, TV and phone services. This way even if a company holds all 3 licenses, it is then responsible for the management, upkeep and future expansion needs of each service separately rather than managing these services collectively as one unit! If we had this system in place, Bell Canada would not have been got caught with its pants down as demand and use of the Internet nation wide began to over exceed the capacity of Bell’s fiber optics network! That’s not the fault of the high-speed users, that’s the negligence of Bell Canada for marketing high-speed service and not expanding its fiber optics network to meet the foreseeable demand of Canada’s savvy Internet consumers!

Invictus should be out resident analyst!