Google is gonna lock phones if you don't pay your bill in Kenya

[Dujith]

@Master Disaster A lease contract would do that yes. Since it will never be your property (it can be bought in some cases at the end of the lease)

But a payment plan like for a mobile phone is just buying it, but you not paid in full. It is however yours.

 

And pawn shops do not have to return it. They can just pay up. Or send it back if they want to. Tho thats their own choice.

The agreement is for the worth of the item, not the item itself. If only that the item itself will loose value the second its sold to you.

 

Disclaimer: I know this is the EU/Dutch law. But i dont know how this is dealt with in the US.

So i'm trying to find out if the rule that whatever you buy on a plan is yours and its all about the money, not the item.

 

 

[Luxzio22]

If you buy something on agreement to pay for it in installments and default on payments, you should have whatever you bought taken away. That's how it works with everything. Otherwise its just theft. I can't borrow money from a bank and not expect to repay, and the same goes here.

 

But using the internet and smart devices to accomplish this is devious, and to accept it is foolhardy, IMO. It opens up the idea of devices as a service and as things that you don't own or control. I imagine none of the phones that incorporate this would allow root access, or allow any tinkering at all. I don't want to live in fear of my phone. 

 

Finally, how is the fact that this happened only in Kenya or with a non google entity matter? Does it make the idea any less devious? Google makes their own phones and could implement and enforce this if they wanted to. And many entities in the space (eg amazon, which also has devices of its own) already have agreements with financing service providers like banks and credit/debit card companies so its not too far off for anyone. This won't be the last we hear of this. 

[Master Disaster]

8 minutes ago, Dujith said:

@Master Disaster A lease contract would do that yes. Since it will never be your property (it can be bought in some cases at the end of the lease)

But a payment plan like for a mobile phone is just buying it, but you not paid in full. It is however yours.

 

And pawn shops do not have to return it. They can just pay up. Or send it back if they want to. Tho thats their own choice.

The agreement is for the worth of the item, not the item itself. If only that the item itself will loose value the second its sold to you.

 

Disclaimer: I know this is the EU/Dutch law. But i dont know how this is dealt with in the US.

So i'm trying to find out if the rule that whatever you buy on a plan is yours and its all about the money, not the item.

 

 

No, it really isn't. A mobile phone contract is essentially just a lease agreement that says you can keep the item once its paid for and most credit agreements state that you don't actually own the item until you pay for it.

 

You really think it costs Vodafone £60 a month to give you unlimited calls and texts plus 5GB of data? You can buy a sim only plan that gives you all that stuff for £5 a month, the other £55 a month is to cover the cost of the iPhone 12. That's also the reason why monthly prices increase with handset spec.

[Nayr438]

15 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

You're doing that typically American thing of forgetting other places outside of the USA have far worse economies than the west.

 

One example that was posted on here a few weeks back, in India its cheaper to buy a return plane ticket to Dubai and buy an iPhone 12 in Dubai than it is to buy it from an Indian mobile provider.

 

I can only imagine what it must be like in Kenya. To them, Android Go devices are probably all that 99.999999% of the population can actually afford.

You're right, my bad. Probably something I should work on.

[Master Disaster]

29 minutes ago, Nayr438 said:

You're right, my bad. Probably something I should work on.

Nah, don't worry about it. It was intended more as a soft poke at fun than a criticism

 

I should probably work on the wording of my jokes so it doesn't look like I'm stereotyping an entire continent LUL

[Dujith]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

You really think it costs Vodafone £60 a month to give you unlimited calls and texts plus 5GB of data? You can buy a sim only plan that gives you all that stuff for £5 a month, the other £55 a month is to cover the cost of the iPhone 12. That's also the reason why monthly prices increase with handset spec.

Never said i thought something like that. But that specific case has been dealt with within the EU. Leases for phones are illegal atm.

They even have to state that you pay X per month for the service and Y per month for Z amount of years for the phone.

Its not allowed to be sold as a all in one price, they have to specify this.

 

And the phone is yours at once. You still however owe them the money. And they will send out debt collectors to get that.

The debt collectors might even sell your phone when it comes down to it  But only after a court order.

 

I get that would be an issue in a poverty stricken country and laws will be different there.

I know nothing about their laws, or even US or UK for that matter. Curious to find out if the UK has the same law in place, they used to be in the EU  

[Master Disaster]

16 minutes ago, Dujith said:

Never said i thought something like that. But that specific case has been dealt with within the EU. Leases for phones are illegal atm.

They even have to state that you pay X per month for the service and Y per month for Z amount of years for the phone.

Its not allowed to be sold as a all in one price, they have to specify this.

 

And the phone is yours at once. You still however owe them the money. And they will send out debt collectors to get that.

The debt collectors might even sell your phone when it comes down to it  But only after a court order.

 

I get that would be an issue in a poverty stricken country and laws will be different there.

I know nothing about their laws, or even US or UK for that matter. Curious to find out if the UK has the same law in place, they used to be in the EU  

Interesting, nothing like that here in the UK. Our phones are still sold at £xx per month.

[Distinctly Average]

2 hours ago, WereCatf said:

Actually, it doesn't. There are literally tens of thousands of things you can buy in a similar manner, but if you stop paying the monthly installments, no one comes to take the stuff away from you or disable them. All that happens is that creditors will be sent after you, your credit-rating gets shot and you begin to accrue extra debt.

You are thinking about your own locale, not everywhere is the same. Credit ratings mean very little in some countries, and the ability to go after someone with a debt collected is not always possible either.

 

As long as buyers know they may get their device locked if they don’t pay when they sign their contract, I have no issue with this.

[GOTSpectrum]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There are some VERY important parts that are just being glossed over here.

 

1) It is only in Kenya.

2) This only works if you have bought a phone from the Kenyan carrier Safaricom using their financing plan.

 

 

Honestly, if you buy a phone on a payment plan and then don't pay for it, I think losing access to the phone seems like a reasonable response. If I stop paying for let's say Netflix then I don't get to keep using them. I lose access until I start paying again.

I don't see why phones would be any different. I think the problem only comes when this start being used for other purposes, but so far we have no evidence or indication that it will.

Another interesting point is, if it is being used with android Go devices as google say, then it makes sense, as Go phones are usually the bottom of the barrel cheap things and it wouldn't make economical sense to take them to court or have someone go and repo the phone. So they can just lock the phone instead. 

[vorticalbox]

5 hours ago, Orange1 said:

so Linus is rubbing off

 

5 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I guess you could say, we rubbed off on Linus

maybe we should all stop rubbing off on each other....

[Irish Man]

After checking the reviews, this app is a risk as well.

[Phoned_]

since it's only in kenya this doesn't really affect me. But I believe this should happen. Why should you keep access to the phone if you're not paying for it

[CarlBar]

5 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Interesting, nothing like that here in the UK. Our phones are still sold at £xx per month.

 

Back when i bought my S9 from Virgin a year and a half ago it worked the way he describes here in the UK. It was listed on their website as a single price, but when you actually go into the contract details it's actually two seperate payments, one for the service, one for the phone, (and another seperate one for the accidental damage or theft coverage). It's just only listed as such when you dig down.

[Mark Kaine]

10 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

If you buy anything else on credit then you lose it if you don't pay, so why not a phone

You do? (edit: I mean in theory that's true, but is a lengthy process with questionable outcome lol) 

 

10 hours ago, WereCatf said:

but locking up the phone itself goes too far.

Why? Usually these contracts explicitly say that until you fully paid for the product the ownership stays with the "seller"... 

 

 

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

Why? Usually these contracts explicitly say that until you fully paid for the product the ownership stays with the "seller"...

I don't believe locking the phone up will make them pay up any more than just canceling the cellular contract and sending the creditors after the consumer. If they've decided not to pay, I just don't see how this would convince a meaningful number of them to reverse that decision. If, on the other hand, they can't pay, then it definitely won't do jack shit wrt. their ability to pay.

 

Obviously, I have no idea how things work in e.g. Kenya or whatever, but over here you have to provide legal identification when signing up for a contract, but if there's a ding on your records for having overdue unpaid bills, no telco will sign you up for the contract unless you shell out several hundred euros as collateral in case you decided to forgo paying them as well. Or the telco may refuse you completely. It's pretty much the same thing with anything that requires monthly payments once you've got that ding on your records, so there are real consequences to it and most people don't want that.

[Mark Kaine]

13 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

I don't believe locking the phone up will make them pay up any more than just canceling the cellular contract and sending the creditors after the consumer.

There's pretty much only one reason why they'd lock up the phone like that. A shit ton of people must sell their not fully paid for phones (probably after a few weeks / months) it's "easy money" and the contractor can't do Jack shit, unless they lock up the phone, then no one can buy or sell it... 

 

Sending creditors is also most likely useless as the people just won't pay. 

 

I do believe such measures are only being in place because there is a massive issue as described above, to discourage basically scamming phone companies out of their phones / money, otherwise this really doesn't make a lot of sense. 

 

 

PS: for the rest of what you said, yes, of course, but I don't think that's how it works in Kenya... It's probably super easy to fake IDs etc... 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

16 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

#2 i think this should be a thing, but not after a 1 time offense, like if you have an outstanding bill your phone gets locked

16 hours ago, Chionele said:

Well, why shouldn't they? If you're not holding up your end of the deal why shouldn't they be able to lock the device like this?

6 hours ago, Phoned_ said:

 Why should you keep access to the phone if you're not paying for it

I see no good reasons why creditors should have arbitrary means to claim their debts. This is not your mom punishing for not doing your homework. Why this particular creditor should be able to lock your phone and no, let's say, a bank? Why your phone and not your house? They can refuse to continue to provide their services, but not mess with yout ability to use your goods.

 

16 hours ago, Chionele said:

Pretty much everything else invoiced works the same way: you stop paying, the service ends.

The service can very well end, but that doesn't entail bricking devices.

 

13 hours ago, shaz2sxy said:

If you don't keep up payments on your car they can reposses it, same with your house so why not a "phone"

12 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Mortgages and car finance have worked like this for a very long time.

13 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

If you buy anything else on credit then you lose it if you don't pay, so why not a phone?

This is not true. If you don't pay your loans, you only lose what you put as collateral in collateralized loans, and some of your assets more generally if your creditors take it all the way to bakruptcy. You may also get an embargo on some of your income via a court order. You don't generally lose things you bought on credit by not paying that credit. Cars and houses are specific cases when you don't use a general loan (e.g., pay with credit card) but a specific collateralized loan where you use the same good you are buying as collateral. Then, if you don't pay, they can repossess the car / foreclose the mortgage. However, you can take a mortgage on your house to buy a car, and if you don't pay you lose the house, not the car. The point is: it doesn't matter what you buy, it only matters what is specified as collateral in your debt contract. And if there is no collateral, there is nothing to repossess.

Second point: a collateralized phone loan could entail phone reposession if you don't pay. It would be pretty stupid, phones are terrible collateral (there is a reason only houses and cars as used as collateral for consumer lending), but they could do it. That only means they get to repossess the phone, not lock it. They don't puncture your tires if you don't pay your car installment, they don't cut your electricity if you don't pay: they just take ownership of the collateral to sell it and hopefully pay off your debt with it. If they want to go that route with phone, they are free to do so, but a) they are going to repossess 1% of the phones, and b) they may not be able to make much of it by the time they get it. Hence why they don't go with collateralized loans. But then they fall in the general consumer loan land, and it won't end with repossession the same way being late in your credit card doesn't mean you'll get your playstation taken away: you have the general obligation to pay back, but no particular good acts as collateral.

 

 

13 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

If you don't like this then just save some money to buy a phone you can afford rather than getting it on a monthly contract.

You don't get to dictate which choices people have. You could always say "if you don't pay on time, you get your legs broken, and if you don't like it, just save up to pay up front and don't borrow". But it doesn't work like that. You're advocating mob economics.

 

 

13 hours ago, Chionele said:

How come? You don't pay for the access, you don't have the access. Works the exact same for everything else as well.

They are not discussing cutting your phone service, which is free of controversy. This is "you don't pay your electricity bill, we lock your fridge" - it's not the same as everything else at all.

 

13 hours ago, Chionele said:

I would understand this if we weren't talking about a financed product but something you have paid for in full, but that is not the case.

Every product you buy with credit remains usable whether you pay or not, and only gets taken away (not bricked) when explicitly used as collateral - and it only gets taken away to be sold and cover your debt at least partially, then you may or may not be liable for any remaining amount (varies by jurisdiction). There is no such thing as destroying your goods for not paying debts.

 

 

12 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

If you buy something on agreement to pay for it in installments and default on payments, you should have whatever you bought taken away. That's how it works with everything.

That's not how it works with anything unless explicitly used as collateral.

 

12 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

Otherwise its just theft. I can't borrow money from a bank and not expect to repay, and the same goes here.

You cannot expect to not pay back without consequences, but "without consequences" and "without this very specific consequences" are two different things.Try getting a consumer loan, buying stuff, then not paying it back: they will claim the debt and they may take you to court for it, but they won't ask, know, or care what you bought with it, since they don't want, nor have the right to, any of the stuff, only the money itself and money is what they will go after. And if there is no way to get it, you'll go bankrupt, get your credit score screwed for some years, and they'll write the pending debt off as a loss.

 

 

 

[pythonmegapixel]

@SpaceGhostC2C

I think you have misunderstood me slightly.

 

If you buy a house on a mortgage, then that mortgage is a loan secured against the house. In other words, the house is allowed to be repossessed to recover the debt if the mortgage payments are not kept up for whatever time.

 

I am entirely aware that this is not how phone contracts work at the moment. I am arguing that if you purchase a phone on a payment plan, it would make sense for mobile operators for them to work like that, if the functionality to easily take usage of that phone away from you was available. In other words, mobile phone operators could require that anyone signing up for a new phone contract agreed to terms which explicitly allowed the operator to lock the device, in the same way that they agree to terms allowing them to cease providing you with data and call minutes if you don't pay.

 

Also I don't understand your point about puncturing tires. If a loan company takes ownership of a car, then surely they are entirely entitled to puncture the tires, even though they would never choose to do so!

 

The phone operators have absolutely no obligation to offer anyone a contract - and rightly so, in my opinion - so frankly anyone who doesn't like that can just stuff it.

 

 

20 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You don't get to dictate which choices people have. You could always say "if you don't pay on time, you get your legs broken, and if you don't like it, just save up to pay up front and don't borrow". But it doesn't work like that. You're advocating mob economics

Honestly this argument makes absolutely zero sense to me.

Not being allowed to use the device that you have stopped paying for is an entirely proportionate consequence. Having your legs broken is not.

Also hasn't that always been the case? If you don't like the terms of the loan then you don't borrow? I don't see anybody claiming about the "lack of choice" in mortgages because they all have an interest rate that you have to pay.

 

I don't believe anybody has any right to spend money that they don't have - the fact that they can is either good or bad depending on your outlook, but regardless of that, it is not a right!

 

And I say that as someone who doesn't have a huge amount of money. How do I avoid this problem? I don't buy expensive phones! The nature of the market is that not everybody will be able to afford everything - which is why there are price ranges, and why everything doesn't cost the same.

[TetraSky]

Well... Honestly, I'm ok with this.

If you don't pay your bill on a device you're financing, you're essentially committing theft. Could counter the few people buying phones on a plan they never intended to pay using stolen identities, only to unlock the device and resell it.

 

That said, not sure how I feel about some unknown entity having any form of control over my device. Sounds like it could be open to abuse and maybe even errors. Hopefully they don't just lock you out if you're late on paying for a few days. Usually, contract services gives you a month or two to pay up before they cut your service (Where I live in Canada anyway).

It also seems like something that can be countered by installing a third party firmware like Lineage OS. Or by rooting and uninstalling that thing.

[Letgomyleghoe]

46 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Why your phone and not your house?

they can, ever heard of rent or a mortgage? dont pay those and you get kicked out, with force if you dont leave on your own

 

if you havent fully paid for your phone, why should you be able to use it?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

@SpaceGhostC2C

I think you have misunderstood me slightly.

 

If you buy a house on a mortgage, then that mortgage is a loan secured against the house. In other words, the house is allowed to be repossessed to recover the debt if the mortgage payments are not kept up for whatever time.

 

I am entirely aware that this is not how phone contracts work at the moment. I am arguing that if you purchase a phone on a payment plan, it would make sense for mobile operators for them to work like that, if the functionality to easily take usage of that phone away from you was available. In other words, mobile phone operators could require that anyone signing up for a new phone contract agreed to terms which explicitly allowed the operator to lock the device, in the same way that they agree to terms allowing them to cease providing you with data and call minutes if you don't pay.

No, I think you didn't fully understand the point about mortgages and collateralized loans in general: you don't get the house locked to prevent you from enjoying it; you get the house repossessed in order to use it to recover what you owe (you even get paid if the house sells for more than you owe). It is a right to force-sell the collateral and use the proceedings to pay the debt. You don't get locked out until you pay back. You get evicted once and forever, and the house is sold. Foreclosures are not a way to put pressure you into paying, they are a way to collect money. This "locking the phone" procedure generates no money and therefore contributes nothing to the creditor getting its money back. In other words: it's nothing like mortgages. If you want an analogy, this is just the same as a guy calling you 12 times a day asking you to pay back or shouting what a bad debtor you are at your front door.

 

 

Quote

 

Also I don't understand your point about puncturing tires.

Because it renders the car unusable while remaining the debtor's property and producing no money for the creditor. It's pure punishment without any alleviation of the creditor's problem.

Quote

If a loan company takes ownership of a car, then surely they are entirely entitled to puncture the tires, even though they would never choose to do so!

That's their problem - now the cars is theirs and your debt is discharged. If they move to phone-as-collateral loans, they are free to repossess the phone discharge your debt, then brick it. Until then, I don't see why they should.

 

Quote

 

The phone operators have absolutely no obligation to offer anyone a contract - and rightly so, in my opinion - so frankly anyone who doesn't like that can just stuff it.

You have chosen to ignore the part where you cannot break your debtors' legs because "you don't have to be my customer, so if you don't like it just stuff it"?

 

Quote

 

 

Honestly this argument makes absolutely zero sense to me.

Quote

Also hasn't that always been the case? If you don't like the terms of the loan then you don't borrow? I don't see anybody claiming about the "lack of choice" in mortgages because they all have an interest rate that you have to pay.

How much simpler can I make it? You cannot dictate arbitrary consequences for each breach of contract, because "we live in a society" and there is this thing called "the law" which, you know, regulates what can and cannot be done so we remain a civilization. That's why "this is my deal, if you don't like it, fuck off" it's always a stupid argument: some deals are ilegal to offer, and others are only legal if properly conforming to existing law. And if that's the case, then that's the argument to be made. Basically that's how you know you must be getting something wrong: when the only argument that comes to mind is "well, they don't have to accept, so I can write whatever conditions I want".

 

Quote

Not being allowed to use the device that you have stopped paying for is an entirely proportionate consequence. Having your legs broken is not.

That's highly debatable. To begin with, it doesn't work like that in any other case, so why would in this one? As stated above, there are specific cases, those which involved collateral, in which the collateral (whether it is what you bought with the credit or not) can be taken away to compensate the lender, but there are no cases in which you can get your property damaged or reduced in functionality due to an unpaid loan. That is not a general principle at all. To begin with, creditors who don't have a collateral claim on a property cannot start claiming it on their own, as you may have other debts to be paid, and that specific lender may not be the senior one. Which means that, in a proper bankruptcy procedure, you could potentially be forced to sell some of your property to pay back your creditors, and it would be a damage to all of them if one of your creditors chose to brick those goods, hence reducing their value and this the ability of all creditors to get something back.

 

Again, all repossession cases are based on paying back the creditor, not on punishing the debtor. Cutting services, contrary to what people may believe, is not done as punishment for past overdue payments, but as a way to avoid generating new obligations you are no longer trusted to fulfill. Civil law deals with damage prevention and compensation. Criminal law deals with punishment. No punishment in civil law ("no jail for debts") is a fundamental principle of modern legal systems. Locking phones is purely punitive, as it generates no benefit to the creditor.

 

 

Quote

 

I don't believe anybody has any right to spend money that they don't have

And nobody can, unless issuing a check without funds, and that's fraud. Other than that, people spend money they have. For example, because someone lent it to them.

I don't see how that has anything to do with locking phones, though.

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

they can, ever heard of rent or a mortgage?

Yes. You write a mortgage contract that puts the house as collateral. It's like you haven't read my post at all.

 

11 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

dont pay those and you get kicked out, with force if you dont leave on your own

They can "kick you out" of your phone service as well - as explained above, you can be cut off from receiving future services, in the case of a rental contract, housing services. In case you haven't notice, though, "rent" has nothing to do with buying things nor with credit.

 

11 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

 

if you havent fully paid for your phone, why should you be able to use it?

You have paid it in full. You just acquired some debt when you did. Why can you use your playstation if you are late on your credit card?

 

Seriously, this time try to understand what you read, I won't keep replying to one-liners that go back to square zero every time.

[Letgomyleghoe]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

"rent" has nothing to do with buying things nor with credit.

 

the moral is, id you dont pay for the services, you dont get them, dont pay your phone lease? it gets locked, its pretty fair and simple

 

it also doesnt brick devices it locks them, and this is particularly applying to phone leases, not paying for service.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

18 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Well... Honestly, I'm ok with this.

If you don't pay your bill on a device you're financing, you're essentially committing theft.

No, that is not what theft is. But I guess that once "copyright is theft", then everything is. I guess "theft" is the new "terrorism"

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

10 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Interesting, nothing like that here in the UK. Our phones are still sold at £xx per month.

Same here in Germany, just got a new phone 2 months ago, 7 bucks / month, but! only if you have a contract, otherwise it's more - as far I can tell nothing has changed. Also the user you were quoting has a weird understanding of "leasing" you can't lease phones, never could (who in their right mind would lol) but you could always get a phone of your choice paying in monthly rates, again, I'm not aware of any (significant) changes, they also always told you in advance what you have to pay (except "processing fees" that usually always came as a little "surprise" although often not applicable if you already had a contract, consequently) 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Caroline said:

But you can't do anything when it's software. And that really frustrates me you know.

Well you can still put up a "show" you just can't sell it, which is kind of the point of locking a phone in the first place... They don't expect to get their money back, this is purely deterrence (imo)