Stop the Cap! » Bell (Canada)

Bell Served With $100 Million Lawsuit: Prepaid Service Expiration Dates Illegal

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:30:19 +0000

Bell Mobility and its parent company, Bell Canada are facing a $100 million class action lawsuit that claims expiration dates on Bell’s prepaid wireless service are illegal.

Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act bans expiration dates from gift cards. The Toronto law firm of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP alleges that prepaid wireless services, often topped up with prepaid cards, should be treated just like gift cards and not subject to expiration dates that wipe out available balances.

The suit was filed on behalf of Celia Sankar of Elliot Lake, Ont.

Sankar is founder of the DiversityCanada Foundation, a non-profit group that fights for diversity, inclusion and harmony among Canadians. Sankar had her Bell Mobility prepaid balances wiped out on two occasions because she did not use her available balance or “top-up” her account with additional funds within the time window specified by Bell.

A $15 Bell Mobility prepaid top-up card expires in 30 days. A $25 top-up card expires in 60 days. Customers can buy a $100 card and avoid losing their balance for one year. Accounts with a $0 balance for 120 days will be terminated.

“Because the prepaid wireless service is the least expensive way to have a phone, and does not require a credit card or a bank account, it is often the only option for youth, new immigrants, workers on minimum wage, the unemployed, people on disability and seniors on fixed incomes,” Sankar said. “These are the people who can least afford to have their funds forfeited or to have their mobile services cut off.”

Bell declared the suit was without merit and intends to fight it.

If the case is certified as a class-action suit, Bell faces the prospect of defending itself against all Ontario residents who have used Bell’s prepaid services since May 4, 2010. Those brands include Bell Mobility, Solo Mobile, and Virgin Mobile Canada.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Usage Caps Leave Bell Customers Test Driving Their New Broadband Speeds

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 08 May 2012 20:39:09 +0000

Bell Canada has boosted speeds of its fiber-to-the-neighborhood and fiber-to-the-home Fibe Internet services in Ontario. But our regular reader Alex notes Bell’s Internet Overcharging usage cap scheme remains firmly in place, which leaves customers taking the company’s fastest offerings out for little more than a test drive before the overlimit fees kick in.

But no worries, Bell says. The company has invented the concept of Internet Usage Insurance, selling you extra usage allotments ranging from 20GB ($5) to 125GB ($25) per month for usage that costs Bell just pennies per gigabyte.

The new speeds are admittedly very fast, but their value is well-tempered by the usage allowances that accompany them.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

A History Lesson: Wireless Spectrum “Crisis” Hoopla vs. Solid Network Engineering

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:11:17 +0000

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem. Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.” — Martin Cooper, inventor of the portable cell phone

Despite the fear-mongering by North America’s wireless phone companies that a spectrum crisis is at hand — one that threatens the viability of wireless communications across the continent, some of the most prominent industry veterans dispute the public policy agenda of phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, Bell, and Rogers.

Martin Cooper ought to know. He invented the portable cell phone, and remains involved in the wireless industry today. Cooper shrugs off cries of spectrum shortages as a problem well-managed by technological innovation. In fact, he’s credited for Cooper’s Law: The ability to transmit different radio communications at one time and in the same place has grown with the same pace since Guglielmo Marconi’s first transmissions in 1895. The number of such communications being theoretically possible has doubled every 30 months, from then, for 104 years.

National Public Radio looks back at the earliest car phones, which weighed 80 pounds and operated with vacuum tubes. Innovation, improved technology, and lower pricing turned an invention for the rich and powerful into a device more than 300,000,000 North Americans own and use today. (April 2012) (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

A traditional car phone from the 1960s.

The earliest cell phones have been around since the 1940s. St. Louis was the first city in the United States to get Mobile Telephone Service (MTS). It worked on three analog radio channels and required an operator to make calls on the customer’s behalf. By 1964, direct dialing from car phones became possible with Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS), which also increased the number of radio channels available for calls.

In the 1970s, popular television shows frequently showed high-flyers and private detectives with traditional looking phones installed in their cars. But the service was obscenely expensive. The equipment set customers back $2-4,000 or was leased for around $120 a month. Local calls ran $0.70-1.20 per minute. That was when a nice home was priced at $27,000, a new car was under $4,000, gas was $0.55/gallon, and a first run movie ticket was priced at $1.75.

With many cities maintaining fewer than a dozen radio channels for the service, only a handful of customers could make or receive calls at a time. The first “spectrum crisis” arrived by the late 1970s, when car phones became the status symbol of the rich and powerful (the middle class had pagers). Customers found they couldn’t make or receive calls because the frequencies were all tied up. Some cities even rationed service by maintaining waiting lists, not allowing new customers to have the technology until an existing one dropped their account.

Instead of demanding deregulation and warning of wireless doomsday, the wireless industry innovated its way out of the era of MTS altogether, switching instead to a “cellular” approach developed in part by the Bell System.

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the 1970s, when the first cell phone “spectrum crisis” erupted, the Bell System innovated its way out the the dilemma without running to Congress demanding sweeping deregulation. This documentary, produced by the Bell System, explores AMPS — analog cell phone service, and how it transformed Chicago’s mobile telephone landscape back in 1979. (9 minutes)

“Arguing that the nation could run out of spectrum is like saying it was going to run out of a color.” David P. Reed, one of the original architects of the Internet

Instead of one caller tying up a single IMTS radio frequency capable of reaching across an entire city, the Bell System deployed lower-powered transmitters in a series of hexagonal “cells.” Each cell only served callers within a much smaller geographic area. As a customer traveled between cells, the system would hand the call off to the next cell in turn and so on — all transparently to the caller. Because of the reduced coverage area, cell towers in a city could operate on the same frequencies without creating interference problems, opening up the system to many more customers and more calls.

Inventor Martin Cooper holds one of the first portable mobile phones

In Chicago, Bell’s IMTS system only supported around a dozen callers at the same time. In 1977, the phone company built a test cellular network it dubbed “AMPS,” for Advanced Mobile Phone System. AMPS technology was familiar to many early cell phone users. It was more popularly known as “analog” service, and while it could still only handle one conversation at a time on each frequency, the system supported better call handling and many more users than earlier wireless phone technology. By 1979, Bell had 1,300 customers using their test system in Chicago.

AMPS considerably eased the “spectrum crunch” earlier systems found challenging, and subsequent upgrades to digital technology dramatically increased the number of calls each tower could handle and allowed providers to slash pricing, which fueled the spectacular growth of the wireless marketplace.

Yesterday it was voice call congestion, today it is a “tidal wave” of wireless data. But inventors like Cooper believe the solution is the same: engineering innovation.

“Somehow in the last 100 years, every time there is a problem of getting more spectrum, there is a technology that comes along that solves that problem,” Cooper told the New York Times. “Every two and a half years, every spectrum crisis has gotten solved, and that’s going to keep happening. We already know today what the solutions are for the next 50 years.”

Cooper believes in the cellular approach to wireless communications. Dividing up today’s geographic cells into even smaller cells could vastly expand network capacity just like AMPS did for Windy City residents in the late 1970s. Using especially directional antennas focused on different service areas, placing new cell towers, innovating further with tiny neighborhood antennas mounted on telephone poles, or building out Wi-Fi networks can all manage the data capacity “crisis” says Cooper.

New technology also allows cell signals to co-exist, even on the same or adjacent frequencies, without creating interference problems. All it takes is a willingness to invest in the technology and deploy it across signal-congested urban areas.

Unfortunately, network engineers are not often responsible for the business decisions or public policy agendas of the nation’s largest wireless companies who are using the “spectrum crisis” to argue for increased deregulation and demanding additional radio spectrum which, in some cases, could be locked up by companies to make sure nobody else can use them.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The New York Times offers this easy-to-follow primer on wireless spectrum and why it matters (or not) in the current climate of explosive growth in mobile data traffic. (3 minutes)

“Their primary interest is not necessarily in making spectrum available, or in making wireless performance better. They want to make money.” — David S. Isenberg, veteran researcher, AT&T Labs

Innovation, not wholesale deregulation, allowed the Bell System to solve the spectrum crisis of the 1970s by creating today's "cell system" that can re-use radio frequencies in adjacent areas to handle more wireless traffic.

Spectrum auctions bring billions to federal coffers, but actually deliver a hidden tax to cell phone customers who ultimately pay for the winning bids priced into their monthly bills. It also makes it prohibitively expensive for a new player to enter the market. Already facing enormous network construction costs, any new entrant would then face the crushing prospect of outbidding AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Bell or Rogers for the frequencies essential for operation.

As the New York Times writes:

When a company gets the license for a band of radio waves, it has the exclusive rights to use it. Once a company owns it, competitors can’t have it.

Mr. Reed said the carriers haven’t advocated for the newer technologies because they want to retain their monopolies.

Cooper advocates a new regulatory approach at the Federal Communications Commission — one that mandates wireless phone companies start using today’s technology to amplify their networks.

Cooper points to one example: the smart antenna.

Smart antennas direct cell towers to focus their transmission energy towards the specific devices connected to it. If a customer was using their phone from the southern end of the cell tower’s coverage area, why direct signal energy to the north, where it gets wasted? New LTE networks support smart antenna technology, but carriers have generally avoided investing in upgrading towers to support the new technology, expected to be commonplace inside new wireless devices within two years.

T-Mobile calls these technology solutions “Band-Aids” that won’t address the company’s demand for more frequencies to manage its network. But that kind of thinking applied to the mobile phone world of the 1970s would have maintained the exorbitantly expensive IMTS technology discarded decades ago, since replaced by innovation that made more efficient use of the spectrum already on hand. That innovation also transformed wireless phones from a tool (or toy) for the very wealthy to an affordable success story that now threatens the traditional wired phone network in ways the Bell System could have never envisioned.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s A Whole New System: AT&T and other wireless phone companies might want to learn the lesson the Bell System was trying to teach their employees back in 1979: Meet Change With Change. This company-produced video implores the phone company to do more than the same old thing. No, this video is not “PM Magazine.” It is about innovation and actually listening to what customers want. With apologies to Mama Cass Elliot, there was indeed a New World Coming — the breakup of the Bell System just five years later. Don’t miss the diabetic-coma-inducing, sugary-sweet jingle at the end. Then reach for a can of Tab. (10 minutes)

No related stories.

Canadian Telecom Giants Outwit Would-Be Cord Cutters; Alternatives Also Under Pressure

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:25:38 +0000

Canadian cable, phone, and satellite providers have done a better job stymieing would-be “cord-cutters” than their counterparts further south in the United States.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) annual report on the country’s telecom companies shows all of them remain exceptionally profitable, keeping pay TV customers far more effectively than American providers. Total revenues climbed from $12.5 billion to $13.5 billion in just one year, as price hikes, Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing, and lack of competition continue to takes its toll on Canadian wallets.

The biggest winners were the biggest telecom companies in Canada — Rogers Communications, Bell Canada (BCE), and Shaw Communications, which all saw profits soar 8.2% to $11 billion. Costs increased about 10.7% in 2011, fueled by network upgrades and rampant hikes in programming costs — an interesting state of affairs considering Rogers and Bell own or control a substantial number of the programmers demanding higher payments. Most of those increases were passed on to customers in the form of rate hikes.

Although Canadians are increasingly interested in streaming online video, virtually every major Internet Service Provider in the country has effectively prevented customers from dropping cable television service in favor of broadband-only access. They manage it with usage caps and usage billing on their broadband products. With streamed video accounting for a substantial drain on customers’ monthly usage allowances, Canadians are unlikely to cancel cable TV in favor of watching all of their favorite shows online.

In fact, the number of Canadian households that subscribed to a cable company’s basic television service actually increased by 2.8% in 2011 to reach 8.5 million. Experts say the country’s transition to digital over the air television may account for some of that increase, but a few high broadband bills with overlimit fees for “excessive Internet use” can effectively drive online video fans back to traditional cable TV as well.

Satellite television in Canada remained flat, with a virtually unchanged 2.9 million Canadians relying on Bell and Shaw satellite service for television entertainment.

But everyone is paying more to watch.

In 2011, cable companies paid $2.1 billion in wholesale fees to the pay and specialty services they distribute, an increase of 10.2% over the $1.9 billion paid the previous year. The fees paid by satellite companies rose by 2.8% in one year, going from $894.4 million to $919 million.

That leaves vertically and horizontally-integrated conglomerates like Bell in the perfect position to extract higher programming payments. Those costs are passed down to Canadian consumers and blamed on “greedy programmers,” despite the fact those programmers are owned in part or outright by Bell.

A Rogers retail rental store

Rogers is also well-suited to remain a part of the Canadian entertainment experience. The company owns cable systems, wireless phone networks, programmers, and even home video stores. However Stop the Cap! reader Alex notes Rogers has been closing a number of those video stores over the past few months.

“This gives customers one less choice for renting movies, basically forcing them to use Rogers On Demand instead,” writes Alex.

Rogers On Demand comes with a higher price, too. In-store rentals from Rogers are priced at 2 for $9 or 3 for $15. A recent look at Rogers’ video on demand website, Rogers Anyplace TV, shows most movie titles priced at $4.99 each. With Rogers closing 40 percent of their retail rental outlets, movie fans have had fewer competitive choices for movie rentals.

One potential new contender coming to Canada – kiosk video rentals. Although services like Redbox are now commonplace in the States, they are virtually unknown in the north. Jim Gormley, former owner of Jumbo Video is back with Planet DVD. With just 2% of Canadians renting movies from kiosks, Gormley believes there is plenty of room to grow, especially as Rogers scales back its video rental business.

Planet DVD has a pilot project running with supermarket chain Sobeys to place kiosks in front of nine store locations. The first kiosk was erected in early March in front of a Sobeys store in Mississauga, Ont.

A new release at a Planet DVD kiosk is priced at $3 for a one-day rental. That’s less than what most video stores charge, but more than double what Americans pay at a Redbox kiosk.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Want Better Canadian Broadband? Move West

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:14:46 +0000

If you want better Canadian broadband with fewer tricks and traps and live in Ontario or Quebec: put the house up for sale, pack up your things, and head west.

Canada’s heavily metered and capped broadband is ubiquitous in the country’s two most-populated provinces where a convenient duopoly of Bell and Rogers in Ontario and Bell and Videotron in Quebec control the vast majority of the broadband market. But cross west into Saskatchewan and things start to look a lot better.

Canadians telecommunications consultancy The Seaboard Group praised SaskTel, the provincial phone company, for refusing to slap usage caps on its customers. SaskTel does not deliver the cheapest Internet access by any means, but the company is investing heavily in fiber optic upgrades to turn the page on aging copper wire infrastructure. Stringing fiber through Regina, Saskatoon and beyond may seem counterintuitive to other providers. Saskatchewan, one of Canada’s “prairie provinces,” is hardly packed with people. With more than 20 million Canadians living in Ontario and Quebec, Saskatchewan gives its 1 million residents a lot of open space. Sparser populations usually translate into higher costs per customer for upgrades, but SaskTel persists.

SaskTel has historically relied on traditional DSL and has competition in larger communities from Shaw Cable, western Canada’s largest cable operator. Although SaskTel’s DSL delivers lower speeds than Shaw can provide, it does so with no usage limits.

Shaw’s decision to provide considerably more generous usage allowances has kept the pressure on SaskTel to upgrade its infrastructure to compete.

SaskTel CEO Ron Styles told the Leader-Post its fiber optic network will give cable a run for its money, and until then, it is satisfied undercutting cable pricing for broadband, delivering a far better experience than either Rogers or Bell provides eastern Canadians, Styles says.

Seaboard president Iain Grant found that what customers are willing to pay for service can also influence what prices providers charge.

“The price is more based on what you’re prepared to pay,” Grant said.

People in western Canada evidently are not willing to hand over as much money as their friends in Ontario and Quebec.

West of Saskatchewan lies Alberta and British Columbia — Telus territory. Telus is western Canada’s largest phone company and also principally competes with Shaw Cable.

Shaw has forced Telus to back down on fueling enhanced revenue with usage caps of its own, and has been aggressively upgrading its network with additional fiber optics and DOCSIS 3 technology, forcing Telus to embark on its own upgrade effort.

Macleans reports western Canada’s more-competitive broadband market has been good for consumers, but has also exposed a difference in priorities for providers.

With Shaw breathing down its neck, Telus has committed to a $3 billion fiber optic network expansion in B.C., improved wireless coverage, and more IPTV service. Macleans notes Telus is the only major telecom or cable company in Canada that hasn’t purchased a television asset, focusing instead on its core businesses of connecting customers.

In eastern Canada, Bell faces Rogers and Videotron. Critics contend Bell sees no imminent threats there, and the phone giant is spending its money elsewhere, announcing a $3.4 billion acquisition of Astral Media — an entertainment company owning 24 specialty cable channels and pay-TV networks, including the Movie Network and HBO Canada.

Bell’s latest “investment” follows its 2010 $1.3 billion buyout of CTV and last year’s $1.32 billion co-purchase of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (the other buyer was their ‘arch-competitor’ Rogers Communications).

While Telus spends money on upgrading its broadband and video services to customers, Bell is positioning itself to control 34% of Canada’s TV universe. Bell is also the same company that advocated slapping nationwide usage-based pricing on Canadian broadband consumers to pay for the “network upgrades” it contends were needed to handle increasing demand.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

The Bell/Rogers Anger Continuum: Where Do You Fall? Conglomermate Can Help!

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:58:18 +0000

All Canadians fall somewhere on the Bell/Rogers Anger Continuum.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Introducing Conglomermate — “Only Conglomermate makes sure you’re matched up with someone in the same phase you are.” — The Rick Mercer Report (1 minute)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Bell Lights Up Fiber to the Home in Quebec City, Suburbs

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:21:35 +0000

Bell Canada Enterprises, Inc. announced Monday it extended its Fibe Internet and television service to most parts of Quebec City.

Unlike in most other Fibe-enabled Canadian cities, Bell’s network in Quebec City offers true fiber to the home service, not a combination of fiber to the neighborhood/copper wire. That means increased broadband speeds — downloads up to 175Mbps and uploads of up to 30Mbps. Quebec City was selected for true fiber service because of of the predominance of overhead aerial wiring, which is much easier and cheaper to replace with fiber than underground wiring. For other major Canadian cities like Montreal and Toronto, Bell has made do with a lesser network that combines fiber and existing copper phone wiring that offers lower capacity for broadband and video services.

Bell says Fibe is now open for business in the region’s boroughs of Quebec, Beauport, Sillery, Ste-Foy, Cap-Rouge, Charlesbourg, L’Ancienne-Lorette, Loretteville, Sainte-Therese-de-Lisieux and Montmorency. Service for Levis is expected shortly.

The company says it intends to reserve additional fiber to the home service primarily for multi-dwelling units and new housing developments in Ontario and Quebec, primarily between Windsor in the west and Quebec City in the east.

The company’s aggressive deployment of fiber is an effort to stem landline losses in eastern Canada. Between cell phone providers and cable companies like Rogers, Cogeco, and Quebecor’s Vidéotron Ltee., Canadians have been hanging up permanently on Bell landlines at an alarming rate for the company.

Dvai Ghose, analyst at Canaccord Genuity told his clients, “Bell is now reporting amongst the worst residential line losses in North America.” In the last quarter alone, 90,000 Bell customers said goodbye, perhaps permanently.

Bell has lost more than 1.2 million customers in the last two years. Even Fibe may not be enough to stem the losses. Canadians are not excited by the company’s video or broadband services, adding only around 27,000 new customers in the last quarter. Bell’s notorious love of Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps may be partly responsible. The company enjoys a poor reputation among Internet enthusiasts for its wholehearted support for usage-limiting Canada’s online experience.

Financial analysts believe aggressive deployment of Fibe may be critical to the company’s long term survival. Not only must Bell compete with a trend towards wireless phones, it has cable competitors selling triple play packages of phone, Internet and television service at prices that are frequently lower than what Bell charges.

Fibe is expected to be expanded to include the entire island of Montreal and some of the surrounding region by the end of 2012.

Click here to view the embedded video.

An extended length introductory commercial for Bell Canada’s Fibe TV and Internet. (6 minutes)

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Spectrum Hoarding in Canada — Robelus: It Should All Be Ours Anyway

Phillip Dampier — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:14:47 +0000

Robelus = ROgers, BELl, and TelUS, Canada's top three providers that control 94% of the Canadian mobile phone market.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Bell: If You Don’t Sell Us the Frequencies, We’ll See That Rural Canada Gets Nothing

Phillip Dampier — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:34:47 +0000

Bell this week brought out its saber collection for a little rattling in Ottawa over the Canadian government’s consideration of a plan to set aside certain mobile spectrum for new competitors.

A mobile spectrum auction, expected later this year, will increase the number of 700Mhz frequencies available for wireless communications.

Some of Canada’s largest cell phone companies are well-positioned to outbid the competition, but not if Industry Canada decides it needs to set aside some of the frequencies for an auction among smaller competitors.

BCE, Inc., the parent company of Bell, has little regard for that plan and has now joined Rogers in a lobbying effort for an “open and transparent” sale, which effectively means the highest bidder takes all.

If Canada doesn’t follow Bell’s advice, the company is threatening to withhold advanced mobile Internet services in Canada’s lesser-populated regions.

“An auction for this spectrum that isn’t open and transparent would limit the amount of spectrum available to Bell, forcing a focus on more densely populated centers in order for Bell to compete with new carriers,” the company said in a news release.

In response, Wind Mobile, one of the newest entrants in the Canadian mobile market, said it would sit out of a spectrum auction that favored deep-pocketed incumbents with winner-take-all rules. In short, it could not afford the prices players like Rogers and Bell will be able to bid for the new frequencies.

Industry Minister Christian Paradis was unwilling to set an exact date or format for the 700MHz spectrum auctions. Observers suspect if he waits much longer, the auction won’t take place until 2013.

Just three major wireless companies — Bell, Rogers, and Telus, control 94 percent of the Canadian wireless market.

Other coverage you may enjoy:

Bell’s Limbo Dance — Company Lowers Usage Caps, Raises Max Overlimit Fee to $80

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:37:32 +0000

Usage caps low enough to set your hair on fire.

Bell customers across Ontario and Quebec are noticing the limbo dance is back in vogue as Bell Canada lowers the bar on usage caps for its Fibe fiber to the neighborhood service and boosts the maximum overlimit fee to $80.

Late last week, Bell’s website published the new, lower usage caps for broadband customers:

Fibe 10 — ~~75GB~~ 60GB (per month) (Quebec)
Fibe 12 — ~~50GB~~ 40GB
Fibe 16 — ~~75GB~~ 65GB (Ontario) ~~90GB~~ 80GB (Quebec)
Fibe 25 — ~~125GB~~ 100GB (Ontario) ~~100GB~~ 90GB (Quebec)

Users who exceed the new usage allowances face an overlimit fee of $1/GB — maximum $80 a month (up $20 effective Jan. 1, 2012).

New customers enjoy aggressively discounted introductory offers, but with usage allowances in decline, customers are being conditioned to use less or pay more. It is the classic one-two punch of Internet Overcharging:

Gradually reduce usage allowances exposing customers to overlimit fees;
Increase the maximum penalty rate for exceeding the limit.

“I am watching my bill to see if they attempt to impose the new limits on existing customers,” shares Stop the Cap! reader François who lives in Toronto. “You pay Bell more for less and even as a new customer you might first pay less and also get less. The ‘pay more’ comes after the first year.”

Want to use more? You will have to buy Bell’s Usage Insurance in advance:

$5/month for an extra 40GB
$10/month for an extra 80GB
$15/month for an extra 120GB

Other coverage you may enjoy: