Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan to Tax All Unlicensed Wireless Devices?

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the that's-a-lotta-tax dept.

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?"

16 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Even Bluetooth? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Even Bluetooth? by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Even Bluetooth? by Radicode · · Score: 3, Funny

      In other news, the government is pushing for people to buy Quad-band Smartphones with wifi, bluetooth and RFID.

    3. Re:Even Bluetooth? by Isao · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So they'd have to pay an additional tax for using a Bluetooth headset on the mobile phone they already pay a tax on?


      As an aside, for some reason I'm not yet aware of the Japanese basically do not use Bluetooth headsets at all. It's rather weird.

  2. RFIDs? Submitters should RTFA by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's no mention of RFIDs which in any case aren't transmitters in the sense of the proposal. They could possibly tax the readers, but then that would mean they'd have to also tax in-store anti-theft devices. Japanese politics being what it is, there's no way I'll risk making any sort of prediction.

  3. Money? by borizz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dead right. Here in the UK we have had a continuous recent history of money-grab tax proposals. We call them 'stealth taxes' over here.

      They are good for politicians in two ways. First, they raise funds almost invisibly - tech companies are always cutting the cost of their kit, and this just means the cost goes down a little slower, so there are no complaints from the consumer.

      Second, you need a bunch of administrators to collect the tax. These people owe their living to the tax and the government, so they aren't going to vote against it. So you start to build a bunch of captive voters, who will vote for you come what may.

      Once you get more than 20% or so of your working population living off the government, there's no way in hell of backing out. Thatcher managed to do it a bit - that's why she's still so hated by large sections of the community.

    2. Re:Money? by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, the stated reason 'to control illegal broadcasts' doesn't cut it with me, as people doing illegal things tend to not worry about laws period. Not paying a tax would go right along illegally broadcasting.

      No mention in the article if it'd be a one time fee when the equipment is purchased, or an annual fee like the cell phone tax or the british TV tax.

      Even with the fee, it would take police resources of an epic proportions, armed with sophisticated equipment to track most illegal broadcasters down, defined as 'didn't pay their tax'. Tracking down people who violate broadcasting standards would be much easier.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  4. "Wants a tribute"? by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love how all Slashdot articles have massive amounts of spin on them now.

    This is a -proposal-, not a law, not even something someone has said 'I want this to happen'. They are looking into ways to control "illegal" radio stations.

    It's quite obvious to anyone that even glances at it that it not only won't stop things that are already illegal, but that it will adversely affect many people it wasn't intended to.

    BTW, that 420 yen yearly tax per mobile phone is about $3.50 US. -yawn- As if we don't already spend a hell of a lot more than that in the US. (Hint: It's on your cellphone bill every month.)

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:"Wants a tribute"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point, its is only $3.50 per month. I agree its okay that a mugger only takes a small amount of money off you. Who would begrudge a bully a dollar when they kindly leave you with your shoes. In effect the robber has gifted to you all the things he hasn't stolen, which must be worth something right?

      Maybe someone wouldn't see the obvious logic of the problem above and might have some doubts. But thats ok because if the majority think its okay then it must be! Thats the beauty of democracy.

    2. Re:"Wants a tribute"? by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  5. Tax vs. License by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't need a license to own property, but you have to pay property tax.
    You don't need a license to buy things, but you have to pay sales tax.

    You need a license to drive, but as long as it's not your car you don't have to pay taxes on it.
    You need a license to operate a ham radio, but you don't pay any more taxes than if you didn't.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Tax vs. License by cocotoni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly!

      Furthermore WiFi, Bluetooth, RC, RFID etc. are in the part of the spectrum that is not "unlicensed" on a world wide scale, as the summary would like us to believe - this part of the spectrum is just reserved for "other" purposes, meaning that the goverments will not decide to use the spectrum to issue other "licensed" services. Basically a bunch of governments has decided to wall-off part of the spectrum (which is of course a scarse natural resource belonging to a particular country) and not use it for TV, RADARs, communication, etc. allowing the development of devices using this part of the spectrum.

      In no way does the deal preclude the governments to tax the users of these frequencies, either per-device, per-user or per-minute.

    2. Re:Tax vs. License by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Besides, it not an "unlicensed band" anyway - it's class licensed. Any equipment which operates in those bands has to meet certain stringent requirements with regards to maximum power, etc, in order to be operated without an operator's licence (which is why things like boosting your WiFi ERP beyond certain limits through the use of high gain antennas, etc, is illegal).

      If, to take one example, the 2.4GHz band was truly unlicensed, your local regulatory authority couldn't stop you from hooking up a waveguide and external antenna to the magnetron of your microwave oven and splattering all the WiFi in the neighbourhood. But, because all such equipment is class licenced, you'd be operating it outside the conditions of the equipment license and they'll in fact come down on you like a ton of bricks...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  6. I don't understand by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In France, if you want to use a wireless technoology, the manufacturer (or group of them) have to pay for a license to gain the right to use a certain band of frequence in certain way up to a certain transmission power. There are a few bands where anyone can do anything without the need of a license but at very low power, but some other bands are very expensive (TV, GSM...).
    Broadcast anything without license and you risk jail sentence, in particular if you interfere with commercial or military frequencies.

  7. Wireless Sensor Networks by dominious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this tax apply per device? What if you have a WSN consisting of hundreds of wireless sensor nodes?