Japan to Tax All Unlicensed Wireless Devices?

Chicken Ranch writes "It's not just about wireless networking. This tax would apply to a range of devices from WLAN to RFID to Cordless Phones to Remote Control Cars. Basically, if it operates in an unlicensed band, the government wants a tribute. So would they still call it an 'unlicensed' band?"

Comments

Even Bluetooth?

[WrongSizeGlass]

The fee would apply to radio devices that operate in license-free spectrum, which includes Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Zigbee, and UWB technologies.
...
Japanese consumers already pay a yearly 420 Yen fee for each mobile phone. So they'd have to pay an additional tax for using a Bluetooth headset on the mobile phone they already pay a tax on?

Re:Even Bluetooth?

[KiloByte]

Since when double taxation was a problem for any kind of government?

Money?

[borizz]

Smells like a simple money-grab to me. Those devices are low power and thus only locally change the radio spectrum significantly. Licensed radio was implemented to keep the long range spectrum usable.

Re:"Wants a tribute"?

[Aladrin]

Yeah, but's -not- a mugger, is it? It's the government. Maybe they don't have a -whole- lot of choice about their government in Japan, but here in the US we -do- and we end up with just as many (and probably more) bullshit taxes and regulations.

As (rudely) noted by the other responder, it's a yearly fee, not monthly, for Japan.

Why is it any different than any other regulated service? If we want the government to regulate something, we have to give them money to be able to do it. $3.50 a year seems awful low to regulate the cellphone industry, if you ask me. But then, maybe they aren't such assholes over there, and don't have to slapped back into line so often.

Over here (in the US), the money for that comes from other taxes. If corner drug dealer has 5 cellphones, and I only have 1, why shouldn't he pay more taxes? And the neighbor down the road that has no cellphone... Why should he sponsor regulation of my luxury item?

At any rate, let's be clear on this: The taxes WILL be collected. They may not specifically say 'this is a cellphone tax' but the money WILL come from the tax payer.

Taxes for road repair come (at least partially) from gasoline.
Taxes for helping smokers get medical care for lung cancer come from... Cigarettes, now, but there was a time they didn't. The burden was correctly moved to those who choose to smoke, knowing the risks. (If my mother can quit, anyone can.)

Why should cellphones be any different?

The problem here is not the tax, but the law that goes with it. It doesn't do what it's designed to, and has adverse effects on those unrelated to the problem.