25 The first of these was that the Fremantle franchise deviated, to some extent, from Gardner Electronics' "core product range", in that it concentrated on sales of cellular or mobile telephones, which were less profitable than sales of other products. Mr Gardner, in his evidence at the trial, said in this respect that only a very small profit, or perhaps no profit, might be made on the sale of a mobile telephone and that it was only after the telephone was connected to the particular carrier, whether Telstra or Optus, that anything would be paid to the seller of the telephone by way of commission. He said that the business would have done better to concentrate on other products. Moreover, the significant reliance of the business on this part of its trade did lead to problems when, during the currency of the operation of the Fremantle franchise by Krishell and Zed Bears, the Gardner Electronics Group changed telephone carriers. The Group had initially dealt with Telstra, but later changed to Optus, resulting in the loss of accrued and ongoing commissions in respect of customers who had bought cellular phones and who had (as all of them had) been connected to Telstra's network. Mr Stenning, who had supported the change, had believed that many of his customers would also agree to change from Telstra to Optus. Had those customers agreed to make the change, the business may well have profited significantly from it. According to Mr Gardner, Optus had promised to pay a "churn" fee of about $100 per customer who switched from Telstra to Optus. However, very few customers agreed to make the change, with the result that the loss of accrued commissions from Telstra was counterbalanced by only a few "churn" fees, which Mr Gardner categorised as "insignificant".