The BBC is reporting that Britons spend more time using technology than sleeping (by about 20 minutes), and that TV still remains popular even with the growth of other digital media. The full report from communications regulator Ofcom is available. It was the first time since 2009 that TV viewing has fallen to under 4 hours per day.
Ofcom said UK adults spend an average of eight hours and 41 minutes a day on media devices, compared with the average night's sleep of eight hours and 21 minutes. Almost four hours a day are spent watching TV according to Ofcom's survey of 2,800 UK adults and children. TV and radio remain popular despite the growth of digital media, it found.
One analyst said this proved that "it's still early in the digital revolution".
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:00PM
If I was taxed specifically so the BBC could exist and operate I would want to watch some of the TV I was forcibly made to pay for. That said, Sherlock is a really really good show.
I also wish I averaged 8 hours and 21 minutes of sleep a night.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:10PM
Brits are not forced to pay the "TV tax". If you don't want to pay it don't have a TV, its that simple.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lhsi on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:48PM
You can own a TV without a license so long as it can't receive live broadcasts. I never watch TV so at uni I did that and only used the TV for console games and DVDs.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:19PM
Thanks for clarifying. I haven't studied British law in years and I know I have forgotten a lot of the finer details.
So the OP's claim is still false. No one is forced to pay for a TV license unless they want to watch broadcast TV.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Friday August 08 2014, @02:25PM
How do they know if you are using it for broadcast tv or not? How is this enforced?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @02:32PM
I'm not in the UK, but in Germany it was simply whether the TV had a built-in receiver. A TV without receiver would have needed no payment.
I'm using the past time because now the model in Germany was changed so that everyone has to pay, no matter whether he has a TV or not.
(Score: 2) by geb on Friday August 08 2014, @04:27PM
There is some half-arsed inspection done by the BBC themselves. In the past they used to have a nasty reputation for trying to catch people out, going door to door with "detector vans" that were rumoured to be able to detect the signal emitted by CRT screens. In reality they just went to any house that didn't have a license.
It's fairly relaxed now. One of my friends owns a television purely as a computer display. An inspector came to visit him, and was willing to take his word on it that he didn't use the screen to display television broadcasts. They never came back.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:18PM
Instead you're taxed so the U.S. military pork barrel can spent trillions on unusable fighter planes, billions to your inefficient auto-industry, and millions on worthless agencies dedicated to confiscating bottles of water from travellers so you have to buy from the airside monopolies, while your unemployed have to keep their kids in a locked car on a hot day to try to get a job to afford their next meal (forget about health care)
Oh, and of course everything you buy pays for your TV through obnoxious advertisements.
I know which system I prefer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by black_trout on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:03PM
Does this seem like a lot to you guys? Of the several dozen people I know intimately enough to know their sleep schedule, less than 5 get a full *8* a night.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:55PM
While it is none of my business, I think this might be the first time I've used this phrase, hopefully correctly.
It begs the question how you know several dozen people intimately enough to know their actual sleeping schedule, and that you aren't being lied to?
(Score: 2) by tynin on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:02PM
Right, also meant to say that I do think that is a lot of sleep, though I think I'm a bit biased to sleep. I used to avoid sleep quite a bit, thought I was wasting my life sleeping. But finding out that the brain flushes toxins during your sleep cycle, I'm trying to force myself to get at least 6 hours.
(Score: 1) by black_trout on Friday August 08 2014, @02:50PM
I guess "intimately" was a misleading word to use- by this I meant my friends and family (and their roommates) that I have crashed on their couch enough to get a rough estimate of their sleep schedule.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:29PM
Stop fucking them all night out, you may kill them by sleep deprivation (drowsy driving if not something else).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by geb on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:33PM
My mattress is technology.My bedroom is also technology, though less advanced. I'm using both of those while I sleep, and there are plenty of other things I use when I'm awake.
It's very, very difficult to stop using technology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:30PM
I've got my cell phone on all day, and all night. I'm always ready to answer it (although slightly less ready, if someone calls me at 3am). Doesn't that mean I use technology 24 hours a day?
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday August 08 2014, @09:33AM
Why compare use of technology to sleep? To what end? Does one impact the other? Just what, exactly, are they trying to say?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @02:34PM
Sure. For example, a specific piece of technology, called alarm clock, has even the primary purpose of impacting sleep by ending it.