At 08 Jan 2008 09:14:55 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Ummm...that was my point. Did you not get the whole thing? I am under
> no commitment to pay any usage charges at any level for these phones,
> therefore if the phones are subsidized based on Verizon expecting that
> I'm going to use them and Verizon will realize income from them, then
> Verizon is in for a surprise.


True- you're exploiting a loophole in the system- in return for making
sales of pre-paid phones "easier" for mass-market retailers, Verizon (et al)
take the activating hassles away from the store and let customers do it at
home via 800#. A few phones, like yours, "slip through the cracks" this way,

but that's a small number compared to the ton of phones and activations
WalMart generates for Verizon. A "calculated risk" as they say (similar to
risk AT&T and T-Mobile take when their prepaid phones fall into the hands
of existing customers buying no-contract handset upgrades/replacements.) >


> > I think "pre-pay" is an invalid term for these customers, as even "post-
pay"
> > customers pre-pay. They only post pay any monthly overage or feature
changes
>
> Nope. Not with Cingular/AT&T, anyway. I paid AFTER the fact, for
> everything. I never paid anything up front.

Sort of- what you're forgetting is that your first bill, when it finally
arrived, was for two months- "this" month and "next" month- so you were
really a "deferred" pre-paid customer- if you buy a phone today, Jan. 8th,
your bill might not arrive for a few weeks, but it'll be for the Jan. and
Feb. billing cycles. They stay ahead of you.

> You're wrong about the bills being pre-pay even for contract customers.

Depends on your POV, I guess.