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

[Master Delta Chief]

This is a pretty aggressive move from a telecom provider and isn't going to be well received by a lot of people if it were to come to other providers in different countries. I get that people should try to pay for their bills, but there's gonna be a time when it's difficult (like for example with the current pandemic). I love how people in here are liking this ability that providers are able to lock your device and the fact that there's some in this thread comparing not paying your bills as theft, like fuck off please. If you were in a circumstance in where you couldn't pay for your bills, you wouldn't be responding like this right now. 

[Letgomyleghoe]

4 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

This is a pretty aggressive move from a telecom provider and isn't going to be well received by a lot of people if it were to come to other providers in different countries. I get that people should try to pay for their bills, but there's gonna be a time when it's difficult (like for example with the current pandemic). I love how people in here are liking this ability that providers are able to lock your device and the fact that there's some in this thread comparing not paying your bills as theft, like fuck off please. If you were in a circumstance in where you couldn't pay for your bills, you wouldn't be responding like this right now. 

oh trust me theres ways to pay your bills, ive worked 5-6 part time jobs at a time before to keep up rent and and phone bill, you can get a job almost always, its that people dont wanna work for minimum wage

[Master Delta Chief]

7 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

oh trust me theres ways to pay your bills, ive worked 5-6 part time jobs at a time before to keep up rent and and phone bill, you can get a job almost always, its that people dont wanna work for minimum wage

That's not a great argument. It shouldn't be a thing getting about getting multiple part time jobs just to get your bills paid. And besides, finding a job right now depending on where you live can be hard task. 

[Letgomyleghoe]

1 minute ago, Master Delta Chief said:

That's not a great argument. It shouldn't be a thing getting about getting multiple part time jobs just to get your bills paid. And besides, finding a job right now depending on where you live can be hard task. 

trust me its not, its finding a job that fits your requirment, its not about getting multiple jobs, its about getting your bills paid, plenty of jobs are open, but the majority of them are minimum wage, people dont wanna work for minimum wage and would rather accrue debt, their is always ways to make money and pay your bills, wether people will do them is another matter.

[Brooksie359]

14 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.

The thing is that you can have different agreements and not all agreements are the same. I this instance they will lock the phone if you fail to pay the bill which is reasonable seeing as you haven't paid for the bill so they are essentially taking the phone back from you by locking you out of being able to use it. If you don't like that type of agreement then go and find other financing options like a personal loan or go to a different carrier. 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Master Delta Chief said:

This is a pretty aggressive move from a telecom provider and isn't going to be well received by a lot of people if it were to come to other providers in different countries. I get that people should try to pay for their bills, but there's gonna be a time when it's difficult (like for example with the current pandemic). I love how people in here are liking this ability that providers are able to lock your device and the fact that there's some in this thread comparing not paying your bills as theft, like fuck off please. If you were in a circumstance in where you couldn't pay for your bills, you wouldn't be responding like this right now. 

I don't think this idea is a particularly good one but I am not going to bash them for their policy like they are some horrible company for having a feature that locks your phone of you don't make your payments. Competition will likely fix this issue and people will buy less phones from them. If you don't like their policy then go finance your phone somewhere else that doesn't do that. I Personally prefer to buy my phone outright rather than having a monthly payment anyways. Financing is great for cars and houses but for phones it is not necessary. If you can't afford to buy the phone outright then you should probably be buying a cheaper phone. 

[williamcll]

Don't buy phones you can't afford.

[Mark Kaine]

6 hours ago, Master Delta Chief said:

This is a pretty aggressive move from a telecom provider - snip-

As for the snipped part, one of the most clueless and ignorant posts I've read in a while... 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

30 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

As for the snipped part, one of the most clueless and ignorant posts I've read in a while... 

I get that sometimes posts can present ideas in a more aggressive manner in the heat of an argument, but in this case other than attacking the user you quote, what exactly are you contributing? 

[Mark Kaine]

5 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I get that sometimes posts can present ideas in a more aggressive manner in the heat of an argument, but in this case other than attacking the user you quote, what exactly are you contributing? 

Maybe read the previous page where I explained in detail why I think this done, and then maybe read the highly offensive post I "snipped" again... 

[pythonmegapixel]

For those at the back who didn't hear: if you don't like the terms of the phone contract, don't buy your phone on contract. It really is as simple as that.

 

Telecommunications companies are not charities. They do not have any obligation to offer you their services at all. At the time of you signing the contract, they can give you any terms you like. And if you happen not to like them then tough luck.

 

You can buy a phone for $100 these days that will do everything bar the most intensive gaming and very high quality photography. I'm holding such a device in my hand right now. So put the money you would be spending monthly on a phone into savings instead and you should be able to reach the point where you can buy phone outright.

 

You don't need a contract. You might want one, which is absolutely fine, but that doesn't give you a right to one.

 

Of course if carriers started locking phones for people on old contracts who hadn't agreed to it in the contract, or started using their backdoor access for other, more concerning purposes, or started locking phones which were bought outright rather than on contract, then I'd be annoyed. But the ability to lock the device I do not have any issue with.

[Luxzio22]

14 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

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.

Some companies care and some don't, and it varies based on the laws from country to country. In a country like the US where a company can rely on accurate ID registers to track people down to their graves, they may not care about what people bought. In a country like Kenya where such means of tracking needn't exist or the company can't expect to recover the money easily due to factors like inefficient / slow judicial processes, unreliability of law enforcement, etc, I don't think they'll part with their bottom line without trying stuff like this, not caring if its considered unorthodox in other countries. 

 

Quote

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

I meant that that's how it is independent of contracts specifying so. Ie in a moral / eye for an eye sense. If you want explicit conditions, you probably need to look into the doomscrolling list of terms and conditions that people presumably agree to before buying a phone financed in such a manner; and consumer protection laws and legal presumptions relating to default on installment payments in Kenya. 

[Mark Kaine]

4 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

For those at the back who didn't hear: if you don't like the terms of the phone contract, don't buy your phone on contract. It really is as simple as that.

I still think this isn't the issue here, even though I agree with your statement overall. It's what many think is the issue because they're unable to emphasize, but I do think this 

 

44 minutes ago, Luxzio22 said:

In a country like the US where a company can rely on accurate ID registers to track people down to their graves, they may not care about what people bought. In a country like Kenya where such means of tracking needn't exist or the company can't expect to recover the money easily due to factors like inefficient / slow judicial processes, unreliability of law enforcement, etc, I don't think they'll part with their bottom line without trying stuff like this, not caring if its considered unorthodox in other countries. 

is the real issue most likely... 

 

And unless we get more info how these things generally go in Kenya, I'll go with that.

 

 

[Phoned_]

15 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

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.

you do actually have a good point there

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

Some companies care and some don't, and it varies based on the laws from country to country. In a country like the US where a company can rely on accurate ID registers to track people down to their graves, they may not care about what people bought.

 

What are you talking about? The US doesn't even have a proper ID... Still, no, the reason they don't care it's not because they cannot track you, it's because it is irrelevant: unless you bought something that holds its value and it's easy to seize (basically, it is part of your wealth and not just consumption), in which case they would accept it as collateral, what you did or didn't doesn't matter because it doesn't help them. Only your wealth and your income matters, because that's where they'll get paid back from / cut back their losses. Well, that and the interest rate they charge you and everyone like you when giving you the loan, which is substantially higher than the "risk-free rate" precisely due to the risk premium they carry: the times you pay offset the times you don't.

 

 

4 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

In a country like Kenya where such means of tracking needn't exist or the company can't expect to recover the money easily due to factors like inefficient / slow judicial processes, unreliability of law enforcement, etc, I don't think they'll part with their bottom line without trying stuff like this, not caring if its considered unorthodox in other countries. 

Is "unorthodox" an euphemism for illegal? I mean, every country can pass whatever laws it wants; I certainly don't know enough about Kenyan law to comment on that (do you?). I do know, as I stated in previous posts, that modern legal systems have eradicated the concept of "paying in blood" for quite some time now. Creditors are entitled to get their money back, they are not entitled to see delinquent borrowers suffer.

 

 

[Master Delta Chief]

15 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

As for the snipped part, one of the most clueless and ignorant posts I've read in a while... 

How is that what I've said clueless, especially in the current global situation? I've read your post earlier in which you claim that people sell their phones while not having paid for it fully. I highly doubt that this happens a lot, but you have to realize that it isn't the only reason they would have to lock down the phone. Even if they managed to sell a phone while locked, it's most likely gonna be circumvented through various means anyways. And by the way, if you expect an apology for me kindly telling people to fuck off when comparing not paying your bills as theft, then I am sorry to disappoint you but that's gonna be a no. 

[Orange1]

10 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

that modern legal systems have eradicated the concept of "paying in blood" for quite some time now.

Well, that is not totally true. Large swaths of the USA are that you will pay or go to jail. Its a profit motive. Many law abiding citizens have been caught up in it, yet sit in jail. Maybe not in terms of the OP topic, or cell phones or any product but "paying in blood" does exist and is alive and well in USA. Sitting in jail is just another form of "paying in blood" but if you mean literally, then of course that literal term does not exist........ but does exist in other ways like rogue gov't agents knowing they can get away with things if you dont follow their directions to the T.

 

The only bad thing to really come from consumer products on a contract is a bad credit rating, yet we are talking about Kenya so who knows what their laws are. I like how the OP changed the title to include Kenya, good stuff! --add thumbsup emoji here

 

 

 

 

[Luxzio22]

11 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

What are you talking about? The US doesn't even have a proper ID... Still, no, the reason they don't care it's not because they cannot track you, it's because it is irrelevant: unless you bought something that holds its value and it's easy to seize (basically, it is part of your wealth and not just consumption), in which case they would accept it as collateral, what you did or didn't doesn't matter because it doesn't help them. Only your wealth and your income matters, because that's where they'll get paid back from / cut back their losses. Well, that and the interest rate they charge you and everyone like you when giving you the loan, which is substantially higher than the "risk-free rate" precisely due to the risk premium they carry: the times you pay offset the times you don't.

 

 

Is "unorthodox" an euphemism for illegal? I mean, every country can pass whatever laws it wants; I certainly don't know enough about Kenyan law to comment on that (do you?). I do know, as I stated in previous posts, that modern legal systems have eradicated the concept of "paying in blood" for quite some time now. Creditors are entitled to get their money back, they are not entitled to see delinquent borrowers suffer.

 

 

So its as difficult to track people down in the US as it is in Kenya? Wealth and income don't mean much if they have no means to recover their dues from you. 

 

Illegal according to which country's laws? I don't know how it is in Kenya but I don't make presumptions about other countries' laws because some countries have stuff that is alien to everyone else. From my own experience, in India there is a system where the accused in a cheque dishonor dispute must deposit a portion of the alleged amount at the start of court proceedings(before conviction). Is that ''illegal'' according to you too? In this matter, the fact that it seems it was the companies that withdrew rather than any regulation outlawing it could give a hint though. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 minutes ago, Luxzio22 said:

Illegal according to which country's laws?

It's in my post.

5 minutes ago, Luxzio22 said:

I don't know how it is in Kenya but I don't make presumptions about other countries' laws because some countries have stuff that is alien to everyone else.

I explicitly stated I don't know either and refused to presume anything.

 

5 minutes ago, Luxzio22 said:

From my own experience, in India there is a system where the accused in a cheque dishonor dispute must deposit a portion of the alleged amount at the start of court proceedings(before conviction). Is that ''illegal'' according to you too?

Of course not. First, because it's what the law says, by definition not illegal. Second, because it's exactly the type of measure I've been explaining, one oriented to secure  at least partial repayment to the creditor, should he win,not a way to punish the debtor. They don't burn the money, they put it away for the creditor to collect if he wins. There is no such repayment derived from locking phones.

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

37 minutes ago, Orange1 said:

Well, that is not totally true. Large swaths of the USA are that you will pay or go to jail. Its a profit motive. Many law abiding citizens have been caught up in it, yet sit in jail.

It has to entail fraud. There is no jail for mere default or bankrupcy.

37 minutes ago, Orange1 said:

 Sitting in jail is just another form of "paying in blood" but if you mean literally, then of course that literal term does not exist........

Naturally, "paying in blood" is a metaphor, and the concept includes going to jail. As I explained in a previous post, "paying in blood" is use for all measures that cause a damage or punishment to the debtor without providing resources to pay back the debt. Foreclosures aren't meant to leave you without a house, but to use the proceedings of selling the house to pay the lender back, hence why it is not "paying in blood". Burning the house, would be. You end up evicted in both cases, but they are not equal nonetheless for this reason.

 

37 minutes ago, Orange1 said:

The only bad thing to really come from consumer products on a contract is a bad credit rating, yet we are talking about Kenya so who knows what their laws are. 

Any unsecured credit market typically works through a combination of information on your income sources (which job you have, if any), the deterrence effect of bad credit rating, and risk premia. Many lenders specialize in people who already have bad credit or don't require proof of income sources, and naturally charge higher (often usury) interest rates. When you operate in a market, that's what you do: rather than dealing with collection with low chance of success, you frontload debt collection through very high interest rates. You don't need to go to Kenya: compare the Fed funds rate to the interest charged on credit card debt...

[Orange1]

3rd world economies work differently.

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

There is no jail for mere default or bankrupcy.

Ah but there is when it comes to default.

Excellent article on debt, and debtors prison does exist in this modern day.

https://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

 

However, we are here talking about Kenya, a 3rd world economy which have different ways and different means. How does the cell phone company deal with credit checks, are there even corporations that do that. My hunch is has more to do with references, higher payments for modern day tech cell phones to reduce the risk.