-CH> GE>Cell phones are NOT really "Free". They cost around $350 - $500 
etail
-CH> >(though no one pays retail). But virtually all cell phone carriers
-CH> >subsidise the cost of the phone so that you can get one without paying
-CH> >anything for it, other than making a one or two year commitment for
-CH> >cellular service.
-CH> Which is one of the reasons the cellular carriers require
-CH> large
-CH> deposits.  Stop with this business that you don't pay for
-CH> it.  You
-CH> get nothing for nothing.
People who have no security deposit pay the same price for the phone as those 
that do. The year contract is what is intended to give the cellular carrier a 
good chance of recouping the commission they paid to the dealer.
A couple of things worth noting.... Anytime someone comes back with a 
security deposit there is a better than average chance that that person is 
going to walk. That's money that BANM loses and money that George Erdner 
loses. It would be better for George Erdner is there was no credit check at 
all. George Erdner in one week probably loses more money due to security 
deposits than what you would have to pay for a security deposit if you had 
bad credit so it seems kind of funny that you're so against the security 
deposits and he isn't.
He's the one losing money, all you have to do is pay a small security 
deposit, which you will get back at the end of the year.
The security deposit's are a pain, I think that a better solution would be to 
limit the person in what they can run up for a bill. At least have that as an 
option. I was reading in the Sprint Spectrum literature that they have that 
capability in Washington DC.
---
---------------