text:
Enabling the IoT Ecosystem with Policy and Regulation
How policymakers and regulators can encourage sustainable market growth
Home > Insights > Enabling the IoT Ecosystem with Policy and Regulation
From wearables to automatic climate controls, IoT technologies promise multiple benefits for consumers and enterprises alike. Moreover, the potential of IoT solutions applies to every sector globally, whether it be home or building construction and use, education, consumer electronics, security, agriculture, manufacturing, retail, or healthcare. IoT solutions can boost environmental sustainability, improve organizational efficiency, and enhance customer experience.
However, despite its tremendous potential and benefits, IoT is expected to create significant challenges for policymakers and enterprises across demand, business model, and technology dimensions.
Policymakers need to gear up to facilitate and encourage safe and widespread IoT adoption. In this White Paper, we discuss the major IoT market growth challenges and assess policymaker objectives and tools that can address those challenges and enable sustainable market supply and demand, as well as innovation growth. We also assess the important role that national telecom regulators (NRAs) can play in IoT implementations and the creation of IoT policy and IoT regulations tools, within their traditional telecom regulatory role and beyond.
IoT's Promise
Most experts concur that IoT has enormous potential to provide both tangible and intangible benefits across a variety of segments and sectors. In fact, IoT is a cornerstone of the technologies that can enable digital transformation across multiple industries. For example, IoT can create a wide array of safety and efficiency benefits for businesses, government agencies, and consumers. It can improve information access and Data-driven Decision Making among businesses and their supply-chains, enable energy efficiency in smart homes or efficient delivery of public services. It also has significant potential benefits for safety and security. Not to mention the customer experience benefits it can bring across many industries, including healthcare and smart cities, where the wealth of data generated from IoT devices can feed into improved Customer Experience Management.
No sector will be untouched by IoT, while a few will be particularly impacted, including home and building construction and use, education, consumer electronics, security, agriculture, manufacturing, retail, and healthcare. The utilities and transportation sectors have recently seen the largest share of announced global IoT contracts and are expected to reap the maximum short-term benefits from IoT (See Figure 1).
According to a Rand Europe survey, industry leaders consider environmental sustainability, organizational efficiency, and enhanced customer experience as the top benefits conveyed by IoT (See Figure 1). A report by PWC predicts that IoT will save EUR 99 billion in healthcare costs in the European Union while adding EUR 93 billion to the GDP. Similarly, mHealth is expected to save over 1 million lives in Sub-Saharan Africa over the next five y ears. And smart meters should save enough electricity in India to power more than 10 million homes.
The IoT Ecosystem Is Complex
An IoT deployment combines multiple hardware, software, and service components into solutions aimed at solving specific problems or achieving specific goals. The possible combinations and permutations in interactions between the value chains of participants make any given IoT solution complex and highly competitive.
The actual value-adding service an end user seeks is the action enabled by an IoT value chain. The distribution and enablement of these value chains include multiple parts and parties, from enabling IoT platforms and connectivity (whether by a telecom operator or via unlicensed spectrum) to systems integration (that ensures IoT building blocks work together seamlessly) and service provisioning. The end user ultimately accesses an IoT application's capabilities via terminal devices such as cameras or electricity meters that have built-in modules such as SIM cards and sensors (See Figure 2).
The broad array of device options and use cases combined with an even broader array of IoT applications makes the IoT value chain an ecosystem that can have an endless number of partnerships between the participants.
Adding to the complexity, many IoT ecosystem layers are supplied by a global production and distribution model. For instance, IoT devices can be designed in one jurisdiction, manufactured in another, and distributed from a third location. And this does not even touch upon technical manufacturing standards, which can be based on several, sometimes incompatible standards developed and championed by different industry players and consortia.
With so many participants in the IoT ecosystem — many outside the jurisdiction in which a service is delivered — it's unsurprising that a fight is brewing among ecosystem participants as to who owns the customer relationship (See Figure 3). For the IoT ecosystem participants closest to the end user, namely the systems integrators, connectivity providers, and service provisioning players (e.g., telecom operators), the complexity of the IoT ecosystem means that their traditional customer relationship will be contested by the other, often global, IoT ecosystem participants.
Finally, to make things even more complex, the value captured by each IoT ecosystem participant is not equal. Initial IoT deployment examples show that the overwhelming share of revenues is captured by the IoT application and platform providers (See Figure 2), followed by service provisioning players and then systems integrators. Connectivity providers and device vendors come last. While connectivity players fair a bit better when considering profit share, it is still a tough pill to swallow for domestic telecom operators that have pinned their hope for growth on IoT. Telecom operators have therefore been considering the bundling of other IoT elements into their connectivity offerings both to gain higher profit share in the ecosystem and to retain the customer relationship. (For more on the telco options, see the sidebar: "Business model options for telcos in the emerging IoT ecosystem".)
Business model options for telcos in the emerging IOT ecosystem
With its inherent infrastructure requirements is expected to lead to major business model transformation for all players, specially telecom operators. While telecom operators are one of the main conduits for IOT connectivity, they are not expected to capture the main share of spending or profits if they continue to focus purely on connectivity in the IOT ecosystem. Telcos that aspire to gain a larger share of the value will need to re-orient their business models and consider moves up and down the IOT value chain, planning and launching major elements, some directly, and others via partnerships. However, this is easier said than done. While telcos can leverage their B2B sales and marketing capability and their distribution, billing, and customer support capabilities, much of the core capabilities required to move beyond connectivity for telecom operators is alien to the existing telco business model. From app development and management, content partnerships, analytics, app enablement, to system integration capabilities, operators need a deliberative process of assessing where the value lies. Not only that, but operators also need assess they capabilities they are able to build and excel in, realistically. For those operators that have the ambition to player a larger role in the IOT ecosystem beyond pure connectivity, there are multiple business model options they can choose from, depending on the level of their ambition and corporate strategic objectives (See Figure 4).Operators that have made a strategic decision, as part of their digital transformation efforts, to be an enabler in the IOT ecosystem can launch IOT platforms that can be bundled with their connectivity. Such IOT platforms can leverage existing strengths of the telecom operator's customer data and OSS/BSS systems via APIs that enable third party IOT application developers to provision their apps to the end-users over the telco IOT platform. More ambitious telcos that want to go beyond enablement of the ecosystem can selectively launch vertical-industry focused IOT applications themselves, or even, more ambitiously, to provide fully bundled end-to-end solutions that integrates devices, system integration, vertical IOT apps, and connectivity, into a one-stop-shop for the IOT end-user.
Challenges for Enterprises and Policymakers
For all its potential benefits, IoT does come with significant challenges that can hinder rapid demand uptake among enterprise users. These include data security, privacy, data ownership, legacy IT, interoperability, and standardization (See Figure 5).
Not surprisingly, the top enterprise concerns about IoT are also those of government policymakers. The shear scope and scale of potential IoT applications across connected devices and the increased complexity and globalized nature of the ecosystem all have major policy implications at national and international levels.
As such, a well-conceived policy objective, along with a defined set of policy tools, are critical elements of a policymaker's approach to enabling the sustainable growth of the IoT ecosystem and demand.
Setting the Policy Objectives
Given the widespread benefits that IoT can bring, the inherent challenges to its adoption, and the complexities of the IoT ecosystem, government policymakers need to have a deliberate strategy to enable the IoT ecosystem. To ensure a functioning IoT ecosystem that provides a foundation for continuous and sustained innovation in IoT, policies must support maximization of IoT's impact by aligning supply with demand (See Figure 6).
To drive IoT supply, policymakers will need to ensure the underlying technology and infrastructure are available and accessible. On the demand side, broader and deeper adoption of IoT should be the main objective. To drive adoption, end-user enterprise concerns about IoT should be addressed. To drive sustainable and continuous IoT innovation at the product, process, and business model levels, policymakers need to provide an environment wherein IoT ecosystem participants have a level playing field and where experimentation with different partnerships and business models by ecosystem participants is encouraged.
To achieve these objectives, policymakers have several policy tools that they can leverage (See Figure 7). Well-established policy tools related to network connectivity have been traditionally managed and implemented by the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) of each country. Most counties can also use broader economic and social policy tools, which would need to be updated and adjusted to account for the new challenges that will arise as IoT permeates the economy.
Leveraging Connectivity Policy Tools
For IoT to grow, network infrastructure availability, affordability, security, and resilience are critical. Fortunately, most NRAs have already addressed these issues via policy tools developed and implemented mainly for the traditional telecom network connectivity market. These NRAs have encouraged connectivity and service layer competition, network security enhancements, network availability, and network service affordability. The NRA toolbox for network connectivity includes the allocation of scarce resources, notification obligations by service providers, roaming obligations, network switching enablement tools, and network security and resilience obligations.
The overwhelming majority of IoT connections are likely to require some form of wireless connectivity in the last mile, whether directly from terminal devices themselves or from aggregation hubs.
Spectrum can be divided into licensed and unlicensed. The NRAs manage the allocation of licensed spectrum to different licensed providers, which in turn allocate certain spectrum as unlicensed spectrum that is open for use for certain devices and applications.
Current IoT requirements: Spectrum requirements for IoT connectivity depends on the specific nature of the IoT service. Generally, for mission-critical services where QoS is vital, licensed spectrum is preferred, because it ensures reliability and security while reducing interference and spectrum crowding. Licensed spectrum is also ideally suited for longer ranges. By contrast, unlicensed spectrum is generally better suited to shorter ranges and offers higher interoperability and capacity. It is sufficient for services that are not mission-critical, such as those related to health and fitness wearable devices or home IoT devices using Bluetooth or WiFi (See Figure 8).
There are several relevant wireless technologies that occupy different positions in the data rate supported, distance range supported, and battery life needs of IoT devices. Some use licensed spectrum and others unlicensed spectrum (see Figure 9). While NRAs, especially in some emerging markets, have focused on mobile cellular technology in their efforts to enable IoT, they need to broaden to all technology options. Key forecasts suggest (See Figure 10) that while mobile cellular networks will support some critical IoT use cases, those networks will provide only a small fraction of future IoT connections.
There is another advantage for NRAs to focus on technologies beyond mobile cellular. Having multiple IoT connectivity technologies in a market can enable challenger connectivity operators, such as 3rd or 4th mobile operators, to create a differentiated IoT connectivity offer that goes beyond their traditional price-based competition model (See Figure 11).
As for as spectrum availability, the short-term needs of IoT will be relatively limited. Current licensed and unlicensed spectrum and technology options should be sufficient in most markets due to the expected low uptake of IoT in the near term.
In the longer term, new spectrum options will be needed to expand capacity. As IoT adoption grows and businesses emerge that are built on longer device battery life and new devices, additional connectivity technology and related bandwidth options will be required.
Recommended actions for policymakers: Within the EU, the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG), a high-level advisory group that assists the European Commission in the development of radio spectrum policy, has identified no requirements or issues with current spectrum in EU countries, though this might not be the case in other markets such as the Middle East.
In the long term, NRAs need to remove barriers to the available connectivity technologies by:
Modifying the license obligations to allow the deployment of IoT-optimized technologies within their existing spectrum allocations
Modifying usage conditions for specific bands for new use and users on a licensed or license-exempt basis
Opening some bands for access on a shared basis
NRAs should also consider emerging spectrum options such as:
White spaces: Applications could be deployed in the gaps between the transmissions of other systems — i.e., in spectrum that would otherwise remain unused. Significant regulatory effort will be needed to design the right approach to white space use; some countries, such as Australia, are already examining how white spaces might enable future IoT.
700Mhz spectrum: There is a possibility to use, at the national level, duplex gap (unused spectrum btw uplink & downlink bands of FDD) and guard bands (unused spectrum btw two neighboring allocations, e.g., TV & cellular) of 700MHz (which is also considered for future mBB use).
The GSMA, in a paper focused on IoT spectrum, recommends that spectrum policy should maintain a neutral framework, where operators are not prevented from deploying IoT technologies in any licensed spectrum bands. It also advocates the reuse of existing licensed spectrum due to its wide-area coverage and reach, capacity, and higher QoS. The GSMA recommends international harmonization of the spectrum to allow the IoT market to achieve scale. It also recommends that NRAs and industry players collaborate to support IoT in 5G planning to enable higher quality service, minimize latency, and improve signaling and addressing.
At the very least, NRAs should first try to forecast the likely size and shape of IoT's future in their countries to determine the likely future demand for spectrum. They should monitor market developments and spectrum use and, if necessary, take steps to make additional spectrum bands available for IoT services.
Numbering range is another scarce resource that NRAs have leveraged to manage supply and demand in markets. While the great majority of IoT connections are expected to be non-mobile cellular, the overwhelming number of expected IoT connected devices do have the potential to outstrip the current available numbering ranges available in many countries, which is something NRAs will need to address in the short and long term.
Current IoT requirements: There are four main issues NRAs will need to consider with regard to numbering resources for IoT:
Type of numbering ranges available for IoT: We have observed that service providers that have deployed IoT thus far have preferred the use of existing national numbering ranges. Numbering assets such as the E.164, which is the international numbering plan for public telephone systems, and E.212 International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) are already used by telecom operators for their mobile connections, which means that extending their use to IoT connections is relatively easy with their existing network infrastructures. There is also the potential to use E.164's international numbering ranges (namely, country codes of 882 and 883) and E.212's international numbering ranges (under country code 901) for global and cross-border IoT applications. To date, however, operators have made very limited use of this option.
Right to request number ranges: A key issue is whether parties other than the telecom operators (and some MVNOs) should be allowed to request numbering ranges from the NRAs. This is relevant for IoT because there are multiple participants in IoT ecosystems, each vying to play a bigger role, to incorporate connectivity into their IoT offering, and to better control the customer relationship. NRAs can theoretically provide numbering ranges to IoT end-user enterprises, which reduces the barriers to switching between IoT connectivity providers. But this approach faces some obstacles. The relative scarcity of mobile network codes (MNCs) per country for E.212 IMSIs (set at 100 MNCs/country by the ITU) means that there would not be enough for equitable allocation to all IoT end-user enterprises in any given country. Even if it were enough, enterprises with MNC rights would need to invest in building technical and economic capacities for managing their own MNCs. Finally, the administrative complexity required for the NRA to manage 100s of MNC owners is enormous. For these reasons, NRAs have thus far preferred to leave numbering range request rights with the licensed operators only, even though this does imply a possible lock-in or switching barrier for IoT enterprise users. An alternative solution that is being considered, but which has not yet been widely implemented, is over-the-air (OTA) SIM provisioning. The GSMA has defined a mechanism for OTA SIM provisioning with the objective of removing network operator switching barriers for IoT users. Although OTA SIM provisioning is technically feasible, operators have not yet agreed upon specific procedures .
Scarcity of number ranges: For most countries, scarcity of E.164 and E.212 IMSI is not a major issue, as IoT numbering demand growth is not expected to surpass available numbering ranges in the short term. In the long term, however, scarcity will become a concern as IoT connections grow. There are several technical and administrative solutions that are being proposed and considered, although most come with strings attached (See Figure 12).
Extra-territorial use of numbers: Extra-territorial use of numbers is seen as critical for IoT device manufacturers that are targeting world markets, but its applicability in many countries is unclear. The options range from global IoT device manufacturers getting numbers on a country-by-country basis to the use of international numbers managed by the ITU to the more complex approach of enabling the extra-territorial use of home country numbers (See Figure 13).
Recommended actions for policymakers: The short term does not pose a challenge for NRAs with regards to numbering ranges. The long term, however, requires NRAs to carefully plan their approach to avoid a numbering bottleneck that could impede IoT adoption. The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) suggests a partial relaxation of assignment criteria for MNCs. But NRAs should consider E.212 IMSI MNC scarcity if IoT users are allowed MNC rights. NRAs must also consider alternative solutions, such as OTA SIM provisioning.
IoT connections that rely on a fixed-line connection will need IP addresses, another scarce resource. IP address assignment is not under the remit of most NRAs, though.
Current IoT requirements: Currently, and for the short term, IPv4 is and will be the solution used by most IoT providers for fixed-line IoT connections. But in the long term, IPv4 is expected to be exhausted. In fact, it could be relatively soon. This is due to the limited number of globally addressable devices (although many connected devices may be located behind one IPv4 address using Network Address Translation (NAT)).
Recommended actions for policymakers: NRAs are encouraged to devise a plan for migration to IPv6. This will enable the accessibility of connected devices from public networks, as it provides a very large address space and could solve E.164's long-term scarcity, especially for IoT devices that don't need traditional voice or SMS. IPv6 does not, however, solve the E.212 scarcity problem, as IoT devices requiring mobility will continue to need E.212. Nevertheless, IPv6 will take 5-10 years to become widely available in Europe, with only 27% of EU networks supporting IPv6 as of 2016. We expect a significant overlap between IPv4 use and IPv6 rollout in most markets.
Notification Obligation
In traditional telecom network connectivity, NRAs have extensive notification obligations for network operators that decide to undertake any of the activities stemming from their authorizations or licenses.
Current IoT requirements: NRA notification obligations traditionally focus on connectivity providers. But with the expected proliferation of IoT ecosystems and their related participants (including providers of applications, platforms, and devices), NRAs need to assess whether the notification obligation should extend to them all and if it is worth the increased administrative burden.
Recommended actions for policymakers: As potential players jostle for position in emerging IoT ecosystems and seek to bundle various elements of the value chain into their offering, NRAs would be well advised to conduct case-by-case assessments of notification obligation applicability for each type of IoT service offered. This could be done through an assessment of contract terms. It is likely that IoT players burdened with notification obligations will resort to courts to contest the requirements. Finally, NRAs should consider a relaxation of notification obligations among all IoT players to facilitate a level playing field.
IoT roaming is more complex than traditional roaming. As such, some aspects of IoT roaming are covered under existing roaming regulations, while others have not yet been addressed.
Current IoT requirements: There are several scenarios where IoT roaming is a relevant concern for NRAs. For instance, "transitory roaming" is a case where a connected device owner regularly (but temporarily) travels to another country. Another example is "permanent roaming," where a connected device and/or its SIM card is sold to a person living in another country and must permanently roam in the purchaser's country. There are also cases where a smart meter might permanently roam on another operator that has better coverage in that meter's area. And there is the case of inter-network roaming for low-power IoT networks, such as a Sigfox network operator that requires roaming on a LoRa operator's network.
"Transitory roaming" scenarios can be covered by existing roaming regulations. "Permanent roaming," on the other hand, creates challenges for NRAs, as current roaming regulations are unclear in such scenarios. Inter-network roaming for low-power IoT networks is not currently a need, though it might be in the future.
The case of "permanent roaming" can be particularly unfair for nationally licensed operators. In countries with no national roaming between domestic operators, incoming international roamers can gain a competitive advantage in permanent roaming IoT services by exploiting coverage differences, while national operators cannot do that.
Recommended actions for policymakers: As "permanent roaming" scenarios can be harmful to domestic operators, with regards to IoT, NRAs should allow domestic operators to adopt measures to prevent permanent roaming. However, as the IoT market matures, further revision or clarification of the roaming regulations will be required. For IoT, regulations should explicitly consider that:
The rationale for roaming underlying person-to-person communication relates to consumer protection arguments that do not apply to M2M communication underlying an IoT service.
Permanent roaming, while not being justifiable by consumer protection, might be an important feature that facilitates further development of the IoT market.
NRAs should carefully review the right of operators to refuse permanent roaming or to provide it on the basis of economically unattractive conditions.
Network Switching
Key tools used by policymakers to ensure a level playing field between telecom connectivity incumbents and new entrants often focus on enabling easier network switching for customers of telecom connectivity services.
For the IoT world, policymakers will need to assess whether the competition in the IoT ecosystem warrants the use of network switching to ensure a level playing field among participants.
Current IoT requirements: In assessing the level of competition and customer switching power, policymakers would need to examine the possible lock-ins available to ecosystem players that gain significant market power.
If we assess lock-in concerns that can occur among two primary IoT ecosystem participants, namely the connectivity provider and the IoT platform provider (See Figure 14), we see that the IoT platform provider can have two potential lock-in capabilities. Their two-sided platforms connect IoT app developers to IoT enterprise users, IoT enterprise users with other enterprise users across their supply-chain, their customers, or some combination of all three. This enables the IoT platform provider to compile significant data on transactions occurring on its platform, which can create network effects whereby the more customers, enterprises, or app developers that come onboard, the more valuable the platform becomes, and thus the more difficult it will be to switch or "multi-home."
For connectivity providers, users that wish to switch will require hardware modifications on the IoT device (e.g., the connectivity module or SIM replacement). For large deployments, the cost of field-force dispatch for changing hardware on IoT devices might outweigh expected gains. In addition, proprietary solutions or spectrum licenses (e.g., LPWAN) can require switching the whole technology and related hardware for the end user. For example, a user wanting to switch from a SigFox network provider to a LoRa network provider will need to replace much of the terminal device and connectivity hardware.
However, there is a difference between these ecosystem participants' lock-in capabilities. The economic costs of switching (namely, the cost of the hardware or SIM change) and the related field-force costs for large deployments could imply an ex-ante regulatory approach to network switching. By contrast, switching an IoT platform should theoretically have no economic cost. It does, however, have network effects and user data migration limitations. Network effects and difficulty in data migration can cause a market to "tip" towards a single supplier. Still, that may not give the same level of protection from competition as economic barriers to entry if user preferences can tip rapidly towards an alternative IoT platform. As such, the case for ex-ante regulation on the IoT platform is not clear cut.
Recommended actions for policymakers: For the connectivity provider, policymakers can consider ex-ante regulations in the form of MNC assignment to IoT users or the IoT platform, and/or OTA SIM provisioning (both explained in the "Numbering" section of this report). Both remedies, however, are still not fully mature (See Figure 15).
Mobile Number Portability (MNP), however, is not an appropriate remedy for IoT, because the E.164 is generally not known to the IoT user or end user. It can also add market entry costs (as porting costs). Furthermore, many E.164s will be used extra-territorially, where MNP is not currently possible.
For the IoT platform, however, policymakers should avoid ex-ante regulation for now, as it can hinder innovation in an emerging IoT market. User data portability and platform interoperability (through global standardization) can be remedies, although we recommend that the national competition authorities handle any anti-competitive behavior in an ex-post manner, until such time that market dominance is observed.
We discuss two-sided platform competition issues in more detail in the "Going Beyond Connectivity Policy Tools" section of this report.
Network security and resilience
Most NRAs already have robust network security and resilience obligations in place for network connectivity providers, such as continuous management of network security risks, guaranteeing the integrity of network service continuity, and notification obligations for security breaches.
Current IoT requirements: IoT services that cater to consumers generally will not require a highly resilient network connection, since temporary service interruptions will not significantly impact the integrity of the service provided. On the other hand, IoT services catering to enterprises tend to be services that control important processes, and thus will require high levels of security and service availability. Such services could be deployed over private networks, which do not fall under current legislation.
Recommended actions for policymakers: Security measures are only as effective as the weakest link. Appropriate security should be applied by all parties involved, depending on the specific IoT service in the respective value chains.
Going Beyond Connectivity Policy Tools
Connectivity is only one part of the IoT ecosystem. For the IoT market to grow, policymakers need to also assess the policy implications of other parts of the ecosystem. These include IoT standards, general data privacy and data ownership, data sovereignty and residence, device and service security, and competition as it relates to two-sided IoT platform business models.
IoT standards
Standardization can be applied to, and benefit, different parts of the IoT ecosystem. There is a potential trade-off between incentivizing innovation and openness. Proprietary solutions tend to allow innovation in nascent markets such as IoT. Standardization processes, however, can be crucial for increasing interoperability and openness (See Figure 16).
Current IoT requirements: The IoT industry is currently driven more by proprietary standards than by open standards. In a 2016 report, BEREC more or less confirmed that there are currently multiple IoT standards being implemented globally.
In initial phases of IoT market development, the adoption of proprietary standards might have a positive effect for investments and R&D. Still, proprietary solutions developed by partnerships and alliances can often be incompatible with each other. This situation may create switching (or lock-in) barriers.
On the other hand, BEREC argues that the presence of open standards could reduce the cost of realizing IoT services through the sharing of research and development expenses. Where participation is unrestricted and the procedure for adopting an open standard is transparent, standardization agreements that contain no obligation to comply with the standard and provide access to the standard on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms will normally not restrict competition. As such, it is unlikely to be a cause of anti-competitive behavior, in and of itself.
Recommended actions for policymakers: Interoperability and related standards development will be important to the success of IoT. Governments should actively support national and international industry-led efforts. Private sector-led approaches to standards development with appropriate government participation is fundamental to successfully developing such standards. However, authorities must work to prevent situations where cooperation on standards violates market competition rules.
Data privacy and control
One of the top concerns of enterprises in adopting IoT is data privacy and ownership of the data. While privacy is crucial for end-user trust and adoption, players in the IoT ecosystem must still collect and process data, as this is a critical part of their business models (See Figure 17).
Current IoT requirements: In Europe, the existing data privacy laws (including GDPR) are considered strong enough to cover IoT data privacy concerns. This is not the case in many emerging markets.
Data control is another challenge that policymakers need to have a position. There could be multiple partners involved in providing different services or even different components of the same service to any given customer. With service data possibly distributed across multiple partners, it is reasonable to expect a dispute over data control. Additionally, since multiple partners may be privy to customer information while providing a service, the ownership of the customer relationship becomes less obvious. Traditionally, this issue has been contractually addressed. But in the data environment of digital ecosystems such as IoT, the customer relationship is likely to pose challenges. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to want to maintain control of their data; choosing with whom and when to share data may even require tracking usage. GDPR requires that companies elicit consent before the collection of data and make the information they collect accessible to the users.
Recommended actions for policymakers: Policymakers in Europe have attempted to address data privacy and control via GDPR. In emerging markets, where general data privacy and control laws are often non-existent, policymakers need to conduct thorough assessments of the types of general data privacy laws they can realistically pass, a process that could take years. To address these challenges in the short term, policymakers might consider sector-specific data privacy regulations.
Data sovereignty and residence
Data sovereignty implies that data are subject to the laws of the country in which they are located. Data residence refers to the physical location where data are stored, which theoretically implies sovereignty.
Current IoT requirements: Data residency laws have been put in place and become stricter in several jurisdictions around the world. IoT data residency is no exception (See Figure 18). Russia and China, at one extreme, have adopted very broad data sovereignty rules. At the other end are countries such as Australia and Vietnam, which are far less strict or have only sector-specific requirements.
Those arguing for data residence inside the country see security advantages such as citizen data privacy, cybersecurity concerns, national autonomy, secure access to data for intelligence and law enforcement purposes, and protectionism that allows local providers to scale up in early years. There are also potential economic benefits, such as forcing FDI (e.g., in datacenters) and local employment gains.
On the other hand, restrictive national data localization laws can be a deterrent for global players, especially if the country's economy is small, as it results in inefficient cloud architectures for those players. It also increases the cost to IoT end users by limiting global competition and reducing the incentive to innovate among local players.
Recommended actions for policymakers: Policymakers in countries where national security concerns exert significant pressure for data localization will need to work hard to ensure a balanced approach. National security and economic benefits can be realized as long as localization requirements do not deter competition and innovation.
Data and device security
While we discussed the issue of network security in the previous section, data security along the rest of the IoT value chain is also a crucial issue for enterprises.
Current IoT requirements: The expected future ubiquity of IoT and enterprise dependence on it magnifies the security risk in each domain. Cybersecurity best practices will be relevant for various IoT entities.
While policymakers might want to rush to set data security rules for all IoT players, predefined solutions quickly become obsolete or provide bad actors with a roadmap for an attack. Developers should have the flexibility to create cutting-edge improvements to defend their products and services and protect their users.
Manufacturers often lack an adequate update and upgrade path once the devices leave the manufacturer's warehouse. A patching capability will be critical to mitigate device security flaws on a large scale.
What is certain, however, is that encryption is vital in all areas of the IoT environment, including at the device level, for data in transit, and at the platform or service level.
Recommended actions for policymakers: Policymakers should facilitate coordination and standardization among IoT stakeholders to improve security. They should encourage the adoption and use of the most recent encryption and security practices. Methods that allow updates from reputable sources, sometimes despite low bandwidth and intermittent connections, especially over the long-term, should be considered.
Competition policy for two-sided platform businesses
While most current IoT solutions offer fragmented solutions targeting specific domains or specific application types, the IoT market is inherently a multi-sided business model. Multiple economic participants, such as third-party application developers, enterprise IoT users, and their supply-chain partners and customers are all inter-linked over the IoT platform.
Multi-sided platform business models are characterized by network effects and winner-take-all situations. Nevertheless, there are plenty of examples of multi-sided platforms that have reached the pinnacle of network effects rapidly but have fallen in an equally rapid manner. MySpace, Orkut, and many shopping malls in the United States have either disappeared or use of them shrunk dramatically. The durability of network effects as a sustainable competitive advantage is thus not guaranteed, as markets "tip" towards newer players with more attractive offers or deeper pockets.
Current IoT requirements: The challenge for setting competition policy in a multi-sided platform arena is that the analytical steps and instruments used to assess relevant markets and dominance are different than those used for traditional markets. The analysis of competition in traditional markets is a "linear" process, going from assessment of basic conditions and market structure to competitive conduct and performance (See Figure 19). But such analysis does not work in multi-sided markets. This is because these markets do not have the typical linear industry value chain. They are ecosystems, where the supply-demand flow can go in multiple directions.
The first challenge for authorities in a multi-sided platform market is to define the market boundaries and to assess dominance. According to the European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies, multi-sided platforms have more than one relevant market that needs to be assessed, due to the very nature of them being "multi-sided". Competition authorities struggle with determining the number of markets when they fail to distinguish two-sided transaction markets and two-sided non-transaction markets. This distinction is essential. For transaction markets, competition authorities should define one relevant market. For non-transaction markets, competition authorities should define multiple relevant markets for each side of the platform. There is also a risk that competition authorities will analyze two sides of one platform but subsequently ignore relationships with other platform markets.
Another complication in multi-sided platform markets is the absence of nominal prices in one or both sides of the platform. This leaves competition authorities with a dilemma: How do you define a market for "zero priced" services? This should not lead to the conclusion that there is no market.
Multi-sided markets also have fluid boundaries. Market definition tools tend to generate static descriptions for any given market. By contrast, two-sided platform environments are dynamic and ever-changing, with companies continuously creating new markets as they compete on developing new business models.
This creates major issues in the crucial area of dominance assessment. When a market is not defined properly, competition authorities may misjudge market power. Standard quantitative indicators such as concentration ratios, market shares, price levels, and profit margins may be inadequate for determining market power. For multi-sided platforms, such indicators may be misplaced, as services may be offered for free, and business models may generate very little or no turnover or profit.
Take the example of Google and its IoT platform for connected cars, which links Andriod app developers to car manufacturers and passengers. Google might offer the service for free, with the intention of capitalizing on the advertising potential. Assessing price levels and profit margins on one side of this IoT platform would therefore be impossible.
Similarly, in multi-sided markets, typical benchmark tests fail. The "equally-efficient-competitor" benchmark test for distinguishing healthy competition from anti-competitive behavior is of limited use in multi-sided platform markets, as it is related to anti-competitive pricing strategies (e.g., margin squeeze and predation). But multi-sided platforms charge multiple prices to each side of the platform. Furthermore, while zero pricing can sometimes be considered as predation in regular markets, it is a very common and objectively justifiable strategy in two-sided markets. It is also unlikely that the cost structures of competing platforms will be comparable.
Recommended actions for policymakers: Policymakers, and specifically competition authorities, need to better understand the economics of multi-sided markets. They must update their assessment tools in a manner that accounts for such complex markets. Traditional "linear" approaches to competition assessment do not apply to multi-sided platform markets.
Redefining the Role for National Regulatory Authorities in IoT
The traditional role of NRAs has been to focus on telecom connectivity and IT market regulations. While this role still applies in the IoT world for the connectivity part of the IoT ecosystem, NRAs can play a larger role than that.
The complexity of the economic and technical aspects of the rapidly changing IoT market is likely to be too burdensome for other policymaking bodies. NRAs are one of the few agencies that have the depth of technical knowledge necessary for understanding IoT market issues, whether related to connectivity or other aspects of the ecosystem.
However, NRAs do not have the authority to lead many of the horizontal policy issues we have raised in this paper, such as general data privacy, security, sovereignty, IoT standards, and multi-sided market competition law.
NRAs can have a very relevant role in setting the pre-conditions for the growth of IoT. They can serve as direct influencers with direct authority and as coordinators and facilitators where other government agencies are in charge (See Figure 20). For example, NRAs can be the national representative in global IoT standard-setting bodies. They can also ensure awareness via technical support and provide input and analysis to authorities to ensure that innovation and customer friendly environments are not compromised with existing or new legislation.
Only by playing an active role in setting policies for IoT will policymakers be able to encourage market growth and meet their objectives of creating an IoT environment that is inclusive, widely accessible, trustworthy, open, interoperable, and built upon industry-driven standards.
National regulatory authorities have a crucial part to play in supporting other policymaking authorities. They should be prepared to provide this support pre-emptively to prevent national laws and policies from hindering IoT market growth.
See if our National Digital Strategy & Policy and Regulatory Affairs Management Consulting Practices can help you.


Skunks Are Cute But Watch Out!
I need gold metallic shoes with a low heel. Anyone have any idea on where I can get a pair?
Can you help me find animal print slippers?
Can someone help me find a pink fuzzy blanket?
Where can I find bamboo towels?
Where can I find paper for a wireless portable photo printer?
Looking for an animal print queen comforter set, any ideas?
Any ideas for baby shower games?
Where can I get colored pencils in a carrying bag?
Can you point my to king sized feather pillows?
I am looking for an apple recipe book, can anyone help?
Where can I get pottery supplies?
Where can I get Indian corn for a centerpiece?
Where can I find a gum tree?
Looking for 9.5 mm string for weed eater, can you help?
Where can I find a jade necklace?
Where can I find a 9V rechargeable battery?


text:
The costs of this website have been met by the Senedd Commission from public funds
Home / Crossrail Consequential should be priority for Welsh Government, says Rhun ap Iorwerth
Crossrail Consequential should be priority for Welsh Government, says Rhun ap Iorwerth
31/01/2019By: Heledd Roberts
Plaid Cymru Shadow Minister for the Economy and Finance Rhun ap Iorwerth has urged Welsh Government to make securing a Barnett Consequential of the Department for Transport's recent loan towards the Greater London Authority to assist with London's Crossrail Project a priority, adding that investment in Wales' transport infrastructure is desperately needed.
This follows Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards' question to UK Government where it was revealed that the Devolved Administrations had been offered a Barnett Consequential following the Department for Transport's loan to the Greater London Authority towards the Crossrail Project.
Mr ap Iorwerth today sought assurances that the offer by UK Government has been made, and asked what was the nature of the offer, whilst insisting that it should be a priority of Welsh Government's to secure this extra investment moving forward.
"Shouldn't this be a priority for Welsh Government to see a potential new source of money as a way of investing in Wales' transport infrastructure? This is investment that is desperately needed.
"We know that transport infrastructure spending in Wales is way behind the curve, certainly compared to the south-east of England and London – if spending per-head had kept up with those areas, an extra £5.6bn would been invested in Wales' transport network over the past 20 years.
"This is a classic case of under-funding Wales by UK Government, and in the short-term Welsh Government must make it a priority to secure this Crossrail consequential – Welsh Government in the last 20 years has failed to stop that funding gap from increasing, the gap can't be allowed to get bigger."
← Ynys Môn AM pushes Welsh Government for assurances following proposal to close Rehau plant in Amlwch
Welsh Government should be proud to support 2025 Island Games bid, says Môn AM →
CERVICAL SCREENING STRATEGY CHANGES "MUST BE EXPLAINED CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY"
Rhun ap Iorwerth MS writes to Health Minister as...
Celebration of Nursing event held in the Senedd to thank our nurses.
Rhun ap Iorwerth MS paid tribute and met with fr...
"I call on all men to pledge never to commit, excuse or remain quiet about violence against women and girls"
Rhun ap Iorwerth MS represents his party at cand...
Constituency Office
1B Church Street, Llangefni, Ynys Môn, LL77 7DU
Welsh Parliament Office
Welsh Parliament, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF99 1NA
Neither the Welsh Parliament, nor Rhun ap Iorwerth are responsible for the content of external links or websites
Copyright © 2022 Rhun ap Iorwerth MS – Plaid Cymru
Website by Brandified - Hosting by D13 Creative

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Patrick Alan "Pat" Day (born October 13, 1953, in Brush, Colorado) is a retired American jockey. He is a four-time winner of the Eclipse Award for Outstanding Jockey and was inducted into the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame in 1991 and the Arkansas Sports Hall of Fame in 1999. Day won nine Triple Crown races and 12 Breeders' Cup races. He was once the leader for career Breeders' Cup wins though he was later surpassed as the events were expanded after he retired.

Pat Day retired in 2005 with 8,803 wins (ranked fourth all-time) and as the all-time leading jockey in money earned. He was a dominant rider on the Kentucky riding circuit and holds all of the career riding records at Churchill Downs and Keeneland. Day's signature wins include winning the inaugural $3 million Breeders' Cup Classic in 1984 aboard Wild Again and his partnership with Easy Goer in a rivalry with Sunday Silence.

Technique
Pat Day was known for being a patient rider with gentle hands and for not using a horse more than he had to, but was sometimes criticized for waiting too long to make his move. Because Day often came with late runs in big spots and had a reputation for saving horse for the stretch  he was given the nickname Patient Pat.  As Pat Forde, a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal, wrote in 1995, "He is so patient he could watch a faucet drip for days".  Day was also strong at taking horses to the lead as he did on Louis Quatorze in his 1996 Preakness victory and on Commendable in his 2000 Belmont Stakes win.

Day's riding style attracted considerable controversy over the years. Barry Irwin wrote in 2016 that he "drove many a captain of industry, hard-boot trainer and horseplayer to the brink of rage." D. Wayne Lukas, who won several Triple Crown races with Pat Day, once said "I'm only as good as Pat Day's rides." He is still criticized for costing Easy Goer a potential victory in the 1989 Preakness Stakes. Day said that Easy Goer was the best horse he ever rode. In 2016, he said, "As I re-run that race in my mind, I chastise myself pretty good because I feel I didn't ride the best race of my career... Still, it was a great, great race. People still rave to me about the Preakness. They say it was the race of the century. I agree, except for the official order of finish."

Riding career
Day learned to ride from his father, who owned a car repair shop in the ranching community of Brush, Colorado. "He taught me basic horsemanship that has been my foundation," Day said in a 1991 interview. "That has helped me tremendously in a roundabout way – being able to understand the temperament of the horse, and adjusting to get along with that." Day participated in rodeo events before beginning his jockey career in 1973 at Prescott Downs, a small racetrack in Arizona. He rode his first winner, Forblunged, on July 29, 1973. He became the leading jockey at Turf Paradise before relocating to Chicago, where he became the leading jockey at Hawthorne and Sportsman's Park. In 1976, he moved to the New York riding circuit. He recorded his first major victory that year in the Jockey Club Gold Cup aboard longshot Great Contractor.

Day was the leading jockey by number of wins in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1991. The first win in 1982 came only after Day chartered a plane on December 31 to Delta Downs, where he won two races on the evening card to surpass Angel Cordero Jr.'s tally by one.

Day rode winners of American Triple Crown races nine times, ranking him behind Eddie Arcaro's 17 wins in Triple Crown races as well as Bill Shoemaker's 11, while tied with Gary Stevens, Bill Hartack and Earl Sande's 9 each. However, Day had a comparatively poor Kentucky Derby record with only one win in twenty two tries. Some of Day's losses on top horses in the Kentucky Derby included Easy Goer, Forty Niner, Summer Squall, Demon's Begone, Corporate Report, Tabasco Cat, Timber Country, Favorite Trick, Ten Most Wanted and Menifee, who finished second behind Charismatic in both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes. He had been the regular rider of 1990 Derby winner Unbridled but chose to ride Summer Squall in that race instead. Pat Day's first and only Kentucky Derby victory was in 1992 aboard longshot Lil E. Tee. On the day of that race, future Belmont Stakes and Breeders' Cup Classic winner A.P. Indy was forced to scratch from the race due to a foot injury. Arazi, the American Champion Two-Year-Old Colt and Breeders' Cup Juvenile winner, became the heavy favorite. Day rated behind Arazi in tenth place, hoping to follow his move and take second place. But when asked for run, Lil E. Tee responded by sweeping past Arazi for the win. "To say the least, it was very satisfying," said Day.

In 1991, Pat Day won the Canadian Triple Crown and the Breeders' Cup Distaff aboard the future Hall of Fame filly Dance Smartly. He is the only jockey to have ridden at least one mount in each of the first 20 Breeders' Cups, and at one point was the all-time leader in Breeders' Cup winners, with 12.

Day made his base in Kentucky, where he rode at Churchill Downs and Keeneland in the spring and fall. In the winter, he originally rode at Oaklawn Park in Arkansas, switching in the mid-1990s to Gulfstream Park. In the summer, he originally rode at Arlington Park, later switching to Saratoga. With the change in circuits, Day's number of wins decreased but his earnings increased. Day won his first earnings title in 1999, followed by another win in 2000 in a close battle with Jerry Bailey. Day finished 2000 with his mounts earning $17,479,838 in purses (recording 267 wins from 1,219 starts). Bailey finished with $17,468,690 in earnings.

Triple Crown top three finishes
Day recorded nine wins in the American Triple Crown plus ten second-place finishes and four thirds.

Kentucky Derby
 1988 on Forty Niner (2nd)
 1989 on Easy Goer (2nd)
 1990 on Summer Squall (2nd)
 1992 on Lil E. Tee (1st)
 1995 on Timber Country (3rd)
 1996 on Prince of Thieves (3rd)
 1999 on Menifee (2nd)

Preakness Stakes
 1985 on Tank's Prospect (1st)
 1989 on Easy Goer (2nd)
 1990 on Summer Squall (1st)
 1991 on Corporate Report (2nd)
 1993 on Cherokee Run (2nd)
 1994 on Tabasco Cat (1st)
 1995 on Timber Country (1st)
 1996 on Louis Quatorze (1st)
 1999 on Menifee (2nd)

Belmont Stakes
 1984 on Pine Circle (2nd)
 1987 on Gulch (3rd)
 1989 on Easy Goer (1st)
 1994 on Tabasco Cat (1st)
 2000 on Commendable (1st)
 2003 on Ten Most Wanted (2nd)
 2004 on Royal Assault (3rd)

Breeders' Cup wins
Day won twelve Breeders' Cup races.
Breeders' Cup Classic
 1984 on Wild Again
 1990 on Unbridled
 1998 on Awesome Again
 1999 on Cat Thief
Breeders' Cup Distaff
 1986 on Lady's Secret
 1991 on Dance Smartly
 2001 on Unbridled Elaine
Breeders' Cup Turf
 1987 on Theatrical
Breeders' Cup Juvenile
 1994 on Timber Country
 1997 on Favorite Trick
Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies
 1987 on Epitome
 1994 on Flanders

Records
Day is the all-time leading rider at Churchill Downs and Keeneland Race Course, the two largest tracks in his adopted home state of Kentucky. At Churchill Downs, he won 2,481 races including 155 stakes race wins, and earned 15 riding titles at the spring meeting plus 19 at the fall meeting. At Keeneland, he recorded 918 wins, 95 of which were in stakes races, and earned 22 leading rider titles. He also earned a record twelve jockey titles at Oaklawn Park.

On June 20, 1984, Day set a Churchill Downs record for the most wins on a single card when he won seven of eight races in which he rode. The record was tied in 2008 by Julien Leparoux. In 1989, he set a North American record when he won eight of nine mounts in a single day at Arlington Park.

Honors

Day earned the Eclipse Award for Outstanding Jockey in 1984, 1986, 1987 and 1991. In 1991, he was inducted into the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame. In 2006, a statue of him celebrating his win in the Kentucky Derby was unveiled at Churchill Downs. In 2015, Churchill Downs renamed the Derby Trial in his honor as the Pat Day Mile.

Day also received the George Woolf Memorial Jockey Award in 1985, given annually to a North American jockey who demonstrates the highest standards of professional and personal conduct. In 1995, he was voted the Mike Venezia Memorial Award, which honors "extraordinary sportsmanship and citizenship". He received the Big Sport of Turfdom Award for 2005 in acknowledgement of the way he worked with the media to enhance coverage of the sport.

Religion and retirement
Early in his career, he had serious substance abuse problems with both drugs and alcohol, but became a born-again Christian in the early 1980s. He has been involved with the Race Track Chaplaincy of America since his conversion, and has served the racing industry's representative on the board of that organization.

After undergoing hip surgery that forced him to miss the Derby for the first time in 21 years, Day announced his retirement on August 3, 2005. He subsequently devoted himself to the Kentucky Race Track Chaplaincy and helped to establish a chapel at Churchill Downs that services backstretch workers. He hosts an annual Race For Grace during Kentucky Derby week to raise money for the chaplaincy, and also travels across America to talk about how his faith and career intertwine. Sheila, his wife since 1979, runs a charity to help single mothers in the Louisville area.

In 2016, Kentucky Governor Bevin appointed Day to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.

Year-end charts

References

External links
Profile at National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame
Interview with Pat Day

American jockeys
Eclipse Award winners
American Champion jockeys
United States Thoroughbred Racing Hall of Fame inductees
People from Brush, Colorado
1953 births
Living people

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


In this article, we will try to synthesize about Multi Factor Authentication with Keycloak and RedHat SSO.
MFA stands For multi-factor authentication. Usual authentication with username/password is one of the weakest authentication scheme possible, which presents a security vulnerability. Therefore adding another factor such as OTP or biometrics enforce authentication security hardening.
Keycloak provides out of the box OTP MFA which can be easily rolled out.
Keycloak OTP MFA is relying on a challenge code which can be delivered by google authenticator or Free OTP.
Keycloak it is based on TOTP (time based OTP). Whereas it is very easy to forge identity with SMS-OTP (recovering SMS challenge code with a SMS spyertracker), this is totally impossible with Keycloak OTP as the challenge code is never send out externally.
Compared to system using SMS-OTP, Keycloak OTP MFA is very secure.
This elevation of privilege entails filling up OTP challenge information.
In previous section has been presented the high level concepts of LOA and MFA, thow o be able to authenticate at different level for client application within a realm and also to navigate between application using stepping-up and loa mechanisms.
Keycloak 4.6 provides what is available within keycloak 3.43 with some additional tweaks which can be found on a client page such as authentication flow overrides.
This feature does not expose the notion of LOA (level of authentication), and does not seem to be very documented in keycloak document documentation.
It means that Redhat is considering those points as very important, and should be available in an upcoming major keycloak release.
Keycloak provides out of the box a very good MFA solution OTP based.
As a whole, keycloak all the current available MFA feature and upcoming features make keycloak a very attractive and appealing product to perform authentication out of the of the box.


The Outrage Garden Rockets are as the name suggests smaller sized rockets suitable for use in a garden. In this deal you get a total of 32 Outrage Rockets 1 pack + 1 pack free. Being garden fireworks they have a minimum viewing distance of 5 metres. The Outrage Rockets are produced by Standard Fireworks, probably the best known firework company in the UK. There are assorted effects in the pack, the most popular being the small wriggling fish effect ones and you get quite a few of those in this assortment. None of these rockets will produce a loud bang. You will get the traditional 'whoosh' of the rocket going up and then the rocket 'pops' ts stars out at height. If you want a lot of rockets for not much money and you have children who don't like the loud bangs that fireworks can make then this Outrage pack is ideal for you.
These are a deleted stock item by Standard Fireworks and hence we have got them at a special price but as with all deleted stock items we check & ensure that they have been stored in dry storage units so that they will perform without issue. Being a deleted stock item you will find they contain a bit more powder than some of the current lines where they have tried to keep the price the same, this often results in them having to take something away from a product in order to not have to increase the price. We recently supplied some to a customer who has left a review about these rockets performance.
David & Sally's opinion - Ideal rocket pack for entertaining younger children, no loud bangs and can be used in a garden.
Garden rockets, minimum viewing distance = 5 metres.
At the sale price Jordan's have these at they are VERY MUCH worth buying. They are old stock dating back it seems to 2010 and this is no problem as they perform better than most similar size small garden rockets. They are essentially double effect rockets as opposed to double burst rockets as they all have a secondary silver flying fish effect. The 4 types of primary effect are denoted by the colour of the tissue by the fuse. They are as follows; PURPLE(appears black in bad light) is mixed coloured stars, PINK is Red Stars, GREEN is Green Stars and lastly WHITE denotes Crackling gold/silver stars.
The amount and duration of the various coloured stars is more than for most small garden rockets at the lower price range.
This level of performance is likely due to the explosive content (NEM /NEC) being 12.5g by my calculations when many similar rockets have about 9g.
Of the small Standard Rockets I have tried over the last few years these stand out clearly as the best in my opinion.


text:
Home » September-October 2015
No Child Left Behind Goes to College
The impact of public school "reform" on colleges and universities.
By Steven C. Ward
One of the least discussed legacies of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on American education has been its spillover effect in higher education. Students educated under NCLB become the walking zombies of intensified testing and continuous assessment in their high schools, where most of the joys of inquiry and learning have been eliminated from the curriculum. As they have graduated and moved on to college, they have become the targets of similar strategies to remake public universities. Over the past decade, the educational and political logic contained in NCLB and its successors, Race to the Top and the Common Core, have begun to alter the once-liberal approach to learning found in public universities, threatening to turn them into large high schools.
The high-schoolization of the university can be observed in the increased reliance on standardized curricula and syllabi; in standardized modes of "content delivery" and testing sold by textbook companies or provided by various online providers; in the never-ending assessments of courses, professors, and programs; and in the growing use of "student data analytic programs" like MapWorks and Signals to monitor the activities of students and professors. These developments parallel the growing reliance of universities on contingent faculty, who are often too busy commuting between universities to have time to design their classes, much less do research or student advising. The new metrics-driven "managerial university" is increasingly composed of many "knowledge managers" (formerly known as university administrators) and many disempowered part-time faculty forced to scurry from place to place to make ends meet.
The high-schoolization of the university can also be observed in the growing fascination with student learning outcomes (SLOs) and competency-based education—ideas both drawn from largely discredited primary, secondary, and vocational school reform efforts of the past. Like advocates of high-stakes testing and value-added measures in public schools, proponents of these ideas contend that if only we can precisely define what students need to know, it will then be possible to measure their learning through standardized assessment. Such assessment would allow universities to be more tightly managed and education to be "self-paced" as students check off various knowledge areas and skills and receive corresponding credentials or badges. Students could be educated without or with few professors or books, as is currently done at Western Governors University, at Southern New Hampshire University's College for America, in Kaplan's Open College, and in Capella's FlexPath program. In this new system, the remaining professors become "product managers" or "course mentors" (in WGU's warm and fuzzy framing) who develop standards for the competencies.
While, in isolation, each of the above changes appears merely to be a pragmatic response to the complex individual problems confronting universities today, such as accreditation demands or the need to increase retention and graduation rates or to close the largely mythical "skills gap," these various reforms taken together signal something much more systematic, widespread, and sinister: the deliberate dismantling of the liberal university with its traditions of relatively autonomous institutions, professional and independent faculty, and self-directed students.
The Impact Of Neoliberal Reforms
The attack on the liberal university and public education in general can be traced to the variety of neoliberal reforms of higher education that have been promoted globally since the 1980s by think tanks in the United States and the United Kingdom and groups such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank. In essence, these reforms sought to bring a "bottom-line" economic logic to public institutions through the generation of market-like systems of efficiency and competition. This was accomplished through direct privatization and by increasing competition between units and institutions, putting in place consumer choice mechanisms, attacking collective bargaining, limiting the power and autonomy of public employees, switching from state aid to student loan schemes, and introducing public management strategies to weed out inefficiencies. Accompanying these new tactics has been a growing emphasis on the accountability of public institutions in order to monitor and limit public expenditures so that they do not become a burden on profits in the private sector.
Historically, the social liberal welfare state, in the United States and elsewhere, relied on a relatively loose arrangement in which the state granted universities charters that allowed them to operate relatively autonomously with only indirect oversight by the state. The neoliberal state, however, has taken on a much more directive and heavy-handed role in monitoring public education at all levels in the name of oversight and increasing efficiency. In order to accomplish its goals, the neoliberal state has borrowed from various management philosophies, such as "reengineering the corporation," "total quality management," and "disruptive innovation." Under neoliberalism, the state didn't recede; rather, it became increasingly active in enabling markets and promoting market-like and entrepreneurial behavior. In order to be a better auditor, the neoliberal state needs the big data generated by the continuous monitoring that assessment provides, even if the data are limiting, self-serving, self-perpetuating, and of suspect quality.
In the United States, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 helped to kick off the neoliberal reforms of the university by magnifying the profit motive in university research. This early reform largely left the internal operations and curricula of universities alone, however; it wasn't until the Spellings Commission made its influential recommendations in 2006 that the high-schoolization process got fully under way. Most members of the Spellings Commission were neoliberal reformers who had already indicated that they wanted higher education to become more responsive to economic imperatives and to control quality and enable consumer choice through data gathering. This is often how realpolitik works; the findings of what appears to be a careful, unbiased study were in actuality preordained.
Commissions and their reports are, however, only the tip of the iceberg of an elaborate global policymaking network. In this sense, it has not mattered much whether reforms were put forward by conservative or liberal groups. Indeed, when it comes to education policy in the United States, it is often difficult to tell the difference between the policy objectives and statements of the conservative Heritage Foundation and those of the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Both champion the use of "disruptive innovation," both advocate for student learning outcomes, and both promote a competency-based curriculum. The only difference appears to be the degree to which they want to use markets to produce social goods, but even there the difference is marginal.
While the recommendations of the Spellings Commission were echoed in President Barack Obama's call in 2014 for linking federal student aid with university performance measures and are a presence in this year's reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, most of the significant action since the commission's report has occurred at the state level through model legislation crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Councilor through the Center for Best Practices at the National Governors Association. At both the state and institutional levels, these reforms have also been promoted by neoliberal think tanks on the right and the left, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Institute for Higher Education Policy, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, and the Center for American Progress, which have produced white papers advocating for marketbased reforms and the expansion of auditing practices.
Such policies have also been put forward by activist philanthropists and "edu-preneurs" seeking either to promote their particular policy agendas or sell their knowledge wares to universities. These philanthropic groups, such as the Lumina and Gates foundations, are no longer content simply to give public organizations money to support their activities; they have essentially become political action committees that seek to transform those organizations to fit their own interests. These organizations know, as Max Weber argued a century ago, that in modern democratic societies ideas have power only if they have access to formal legal mechanisms to institutionalize them. You may win hearts and minds through propaganda or charismatic authority or "advocacy research," but you will never impose your will without access to and control of the instruments of legal authority.
As this network of think tanks, commissions, and philanthropists has solidified over the last decade or so, it has incorporated university administrators and boards into its nexus of influence. University administrators have been exposed to neoliberal ideas and new higher education products at various annual conventions of higher education associations, at events such as the Education Innovation Summit, and in expensive briefings by consulting firms like McKinsey and Company, Boston Consulting, and Campus Strategies, LLC. Universities have adopted strategies promoted at these events, usually haphazardly and without much consideration of their origins or possible outcomes, in order to "be at the forefront of disruptive innovation," often at the behest of boards that are increasingly composed of business-minded neoliberals who lack direct knowledge of the system they are overseeing.
If the assault on public higher education is successful, our students will have a radically different experience from previous generations. Although elite institutions will probably be relatively unchanged, elsewhere students will attend professor-less (or nearly professorless) institutions with course materials designed by "edu-metricians" and provided online; their work will be assessed by "education specialists" using standardized rubrics and "competency mapping." These cut-rate education retailers will serve mostly middle- and lower-income students at community colleges or at mid-level state universities like my own. Students at these institutions will be expected to become rational consumers who are responsible in the choice of university, debt load, and major; at the same time, they will be monitored to make sure they spend their time and money prudently as they go about checking off their SLOs. University budgets will increasingly rely on patents or, when funding is provided by the state or through federal student aid, will be determined by how well institutions show "value added" through the performance measures provided by competency-based education. And an increasing number of administrators will spend most of their day in the classic "data death spiral," gazing at spreadsheets and managing and mining the "big data" of assessment matrixes.
In the end, neoliberal policies undoubtedly will produce the stated goal of market variation, but they will do so with increased stratification, surveillance, and auditing—killing, ironically, the very liberalism that gave birth to both neoliberalism and the modern university.
Steven C. Ward is professor of sociology at Western Connecticut State University. His most recent book is Neoliberalism and the Global Restructuring of Knowledge and Education. His work has appeared in academic journals as well as in publications such as the Conversation, Newsweek, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and Times Higher Education. His e-mail address is [email protected].
‹ A Journalist's View of the Assault on Public Education up The Whistleblower Effect ›


text:
Tag: Shooting
Boston Police by 617heidi Jan 17, 202308:30 January 17, 2023
Woman Shot on Snowy Southie Street Sunday Expected to Survie Sources Say
Shortly after 17:30 hours on Sunday, January 15, 2023, Boston Police Officers from District C-6 responded to multiple 911 calls for 5-9 shots fired in the area of 629 Dorchester Ave near Andrew Square in […]
Boston Police by 617heidi Jan 11, 202312:41
Boston Police Investigating Double Shooting in Roxbury Overnight
Last night, January 11, 2023, at approximately 01:40 hours, Boston Police officers from District B-2 responded to a ShotSpotter activation in the area of Washington Street near MLK Boulevard for 17+ rounds. Police also received […]
Cambridge by 617heidi Jan 10, 202311:40 January 10, 2023
Cambridge Police Investigating After Double Shooting Overnight Near Kendall Square
At approximately 20:15 hours last night, Cambridge Police officers responded to a ShotSpotter activation in the area of 595 Technology Square. As Officers canvased, the area, their operations center began receiving additional 911 calls updating […]
Out of Town by 617heidi Jan 7, 202313:36 January 7, 2023
Investigation Underway After Gunshot Victim Walks Into Emergency Room
At approximately 19:00 hours on Thursday, January 5th, 2023, Milton Police officers alongside Boston Police officers from District E-5 received reports of a man who was shot. Sources say the victim took himself to the […]
Out of Town by 617Will Jan 4, 202314:00 January 4, 2023
Breaking: Machete Wielding Madman Near MIT Stopped by Cambridge Police During Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting
LAST UPDATED: WED January 4, 2023, 17:15 Hours Earlier today, January 4, 2023, between 13:00 and 13:30 hours multiple Cambridge Police Officers responded to a call for an emotionally disturbed person who was actively harming […]
Boston Police by 617Will Jan 2, 202309:00 January 4, 2023
NYE House Party in Mattapan Rings in New Year with First Homicide of 2023 During Double Shooting
At approximately 05:56 hours on Sunday January 1, 2023, officers assigned to District B-3 responded to a call for a person shot in the area of 1601 Blue Hill Avenue in Mattapan. According to radio […]
Boston Police by 617heidi Dec 15, 202211:56
Another Shooting Rocks the City, Leaving one Victim Dead
On Wednesday, December 14th, 2022, at approximately 23:15 hours, Boston Police officers assigned to District B-2 both responded to numerous 911 calls all reporting that a shooting had occurred near 20 Kensington Street in Roxbury. […]
Victim Left with Severe Injuries after Shooting in front of the Moxy
At approximately 21:12 hours last night Sunday, December 11th, Boston Police officers assigned to District A-1 both responded to a 911 call reporting that multiple people were injured after a shooting and stabbing that occurred […]
Boston Police by 617heidi Dec 11, 202214:15 December 12, 2022
Man Shot on Brighton Avenue Gravely Injured, Suspect Still at Large
At approximately 02:29 hours on December 11th 2022, Boston Police officers from District D-14 both responded to a 911 call reporting that a person was shot right outside of the Yas Chicken restaurant on 128 […]
Boston Police by 617heidi Dec 6, 202218:30 December 6, 2022
Double Shooting Near Elementary School Frightens Parents
On Monday, December 5th, 2022, at approximately 15:00 hours, Boston Police officers assigned to District B-3 responded along with Boston EMS to multiple 911 calls reporting that two people were shot near 155 Talbot Avenue. […]
Boston Police by 617heidi Nov 28, 202223:00 November 30, 2022
Man Shot on Lindsey Street in Dorchester Flees to Police Station Rather than Hospital
At approximately 22:30 hours on Sunday, November 27, a person who appeared to have been shot in the chest suddenly arrived at a the District C-11, Boston Police Station. The victim reported that he had […]
City of Boston by 617heidi Nov 21, 202211:47 November 30, 2022
Man Hospitalized after Being Shot in Charlestown
On Sunday, November 20, 2022, Boston EMTs and Boston Police officers from District A-15 and A-1 responded to a 911 call reporting that a person had been shot at 50 Tufts Street in Charlestown. Upon […]
Boston Police by 617heidi Nov 9, 202218:15 November 13, 2022
Daytime Murder Rocks Neighborhood as Riley Brothers Construction Worker is Gunned Down in front of Family
On Wednesday, November 9, 2022, at approximately 13:13 hours this afternoon, Boston EMTs and Boston Police officers both responded to a 911 call for a person shot. The reporting 911 caller stated that someone had […]
Boston Police by 617Will Nov 9, 202212:30 November 9, 2022
Hyde Park Triple Shooting Victim to Face Charges After Search Warrant Turns Up Multiple High Capacity Firearms
At about 9:46 PM on Sunday November 6, 2022, officers assigned to District E-18 responded to a call for a person shot in the area of 1 Rosa Street in Hyde Park. On arrival, one […]
EXCLUSIVE: Repeat Offender in Custody In Under Two Hours After Brazen Franklin Field Shooting
At approximately 21:40 hours, officers assigned to District B-3 responded to a ShotSpotter activation for 10 rounds at 4 Ames Street inside of the Franklin Field Projects in Dorchester. As officers responded to the ShotSpotter, […]


text:
/*
** BYTEmark (tm)
** BYTE Magazine's Native Mode benchmarks
** Rick Grehan, BYTE Magazine
**
** Create:
** Revision: 3/95
**
** DISCLAIMER
** The source, executable, and documentation files that comprise
** the BYTEmark benchmarks are made available on an "as is" basis.
** This means that we at BYTE Magazine have made every reasonable
** effort to verify that the there are no errors in the source and
** executable code.  We cannot, however, guarantee that the programs
** are error-free.  Consequently, McGraw-HIll and BYTE Magazine make
** no claims in regard to the fitness of the source code, executable
** code, and documentation of the BYTEmark.
**
** Furthermore, BYTE Magazine, McGraw-Hill, and all employees
** of McGraw-Hill cannot be held responsible for any damages resulting
** from the use of this code or the results obtained from using
** this code.
*/

/************************
** BITFIELD OPERATIONS **
*************************/

/*************
** DoBitops **
**************
** Perform the bit operations test portion of the CPU
** benchmark.  Returns the iterations per second.
*/

using System;

public class BitOps : BitOpStruct
{
    public override string Name()
    {
        return "BITFIELD";
    }

    public override double Run()
    {
        int[] bitarraybase;             /* Base of bitmap array */
        int[] bitoparraybase;           /* Base of bitmap operations array */
        int nbitops = 0;                /* # of bitfield operations */
        long accumtime;                 /* Accumulated time in ticks */
        double iterations;              /* # of iterations */

        /*
		** See if we need to run adjustment code.
		*/
        if (this.adjust == 0)
        {
            bitarraybase = new int[this.bitfieldarraysize];

            /*
			** Initialize bitfield operations array to [2,30] elements
			*/
            this.bitoparraysize = 30;

            while (true)
            {
                /*
				** Allocate space for operations array
				*/
                bitoparraybase = new int[this.bitoparraysize * 2];

                /*
				** Do an iteration of the bitmap test.  If the
				** elapsed time is less than or equal to the permitted
				** minimum, then de-allocate the array, reallocate a
				** larger version, and try again.
				*/
                if (DoBitfieldIteration(bitarraybase,
                                       bitoparraybase,
                                       this.bitoparraysize,
                                       ref nbitops) > global.min_ticks)
                    break;          /* We're ok...exit */

                this.bitoparraysize += 100;
            }
        }
        else
        {
            /*
			** Don't need to do self adjustment, just allocate
			** the array space.
			*/
            bitarraybase = new int[this.bitfieldarraysize];
            bitoparraybase = new int[this.bitoparraysize * 2];
        }

        /*
		** All's well if we get here.  Repeatedly perform bitops until the
		** accumulated elapsed time is greater than # of seconds requested.
		*/
        accumtime = 0;
        iterations = (double)0.0;

        do
        {
            accumtime += DoBitfieldIteration(bitarraybase,
                                             bitoparraybase,
                                             this.bitoparraysize,
                                             ref nbitops);
            iterations += (double)nbitops;
        } while (ByteMark.TicksToSecs(accumtime) < this.request_secs);

        /*
		** Clean up, calculate results, and go home.
		** Also, set adjustment flag to show that we don't have
		** to do self adjusting in the future.
		*/
        if (this.adjust == 0)
            this.adjust = 1;

        return (iterations / ByteMark.TicksToFracSecs(accumtime));
    }

    /************************
	** DoBitfieldIteration **
	*************************
	** Perform a single iteration of the bitfield benchmark.
	** Return the # of ticks accumulated by the operation.
	*/
    private static long DoBitfieldIteration(int[] bitarraybase,
                                    int[] bitoparraybase,
                                    int bitoparraysize,
                                    ref int nbitops)
    {
        int i;                         /* Index */
        int bitoffset;                 /* Offset into bitmap */
        long elapsed;                  /* Time to execute */

        /*
		** Clear # bitops counter
		*/
        nbitops = 0;

        /*
		** Construct a set of bitmap offsets and run lengths.
		** The offset can be any random number from 0 to the
		** size of the bitmap (in bits).  The run length can
		** be any random number from 1 to the number of bits
		** between the offset and the end of the bitmap.
		** Note that the bitmap has 8192 * 32 bits in it.
		** (262,144 bits)
		*/
        for (i = 0; i < bitoparraysize; i++)
        {
            /* First item is offset */
            bitoparraybase[i + i] = bitoffset = ByteMark.abs_randwc(262140);

            /* Next item is run length */
            nbitops += bitoparraybase[i + i + 1] = ByteMark.abs_randwc(262140 - bitoffset);
        }

        /*
		** Array of offset and lengths built...do an iteration of
		** the test.
		** Start the stopwatch.
		*/
        elapsed = ByteMark.StartStopwatch();

        /*
		** Loop through array off offset/run length pairs.
		** Execute operation based on modulus of index.
		*/
        for (i = 0; i < bitoparraysize; i++)
        {
            switch (i % 3)
            {
                case 0: /* Set run of bits */
                    ToggleBitRun(bitarraybase,
                                 bitoparraybase[i + i],
                                 bitoparraybase[i + i + 1],
                                 1);
                    break;

                case 1: /* Clear run of bits */
                    ToggleBitRun(bitarraybase,
                                 bitoparraybase[i + i],
                                 bitoparraybase[i + i + 1],
                                 0);
                    break;

                case 2: /* Complement run of bits */
                    FlipBitRun(bitarraybase,
                               bitoparraybase[i + i],
                               bitoparraybase[i + i + 1]);
                    break;
            }
        }

        /*
		** Return elapsed time
		*/
        return (ByteMark.StopStopwatch(elapsed));
    }

    /*****************************
	**     ToggleBitRun          *
	******************************
	** Set or clear a run of nbits starting at
	** bit_addr in bitmap.
	*/
    private static void ToggleBitRun(int[] bitmap,         /* Bitmap */
                             int bit_addr,         /* Address of bits to set */
                             int nbits,            /* # of bits to set/clr */
                             int val)              /* 1 or 0 */
    {
        int bindex;   /* Index into array */
        int bitnumb;  /* Bit number */

        while (nbits-- > 0)
        {
#if LONG64
			bindex=bit_addr>>>6;     /* Index is number /64 */
			bindex=bit_addr % 64;    /* Bit number in word */
#else
            bindex = (int)((uint)bit_addr) >> 5;     /* Index is number /32 */
            bitnumb = bit_addr % 32;   /* bit number in word */
#endif

            if (val != 0)
                bitmap[bindex] |= (1 << bitnumb);
            else
                bitmap[bindex] &= ~(1 << bitnumb);
            bit_addr++;
        }
        return;
    }

    /***************
	** FlipBitRun **
	****************
	** Complements a run of bits.
	*/
    private static void FlipBitRun(int[] bitmap,            /* Bit map */
                           int bit_addr,            /* Bit address */
                           int nbits)               /* # of bits to flip */
    {
        int bindex;   /* Index into array */
        int bitnumb;  /* Bit number */

        while (nbits-- > 0)
        {
#if LONG64
			bindex=bit_addr>>6;     /* Index is number /64 */
			bitnumb=bit_addr % 32;	 /* Bit number in longword */
#else
            bindex = bit_addr >> 5;     /* Index is number /32 */
            bitnumb = bit_addr % 32;   /* Bit number in longword */
#endif
            bitmap[bindex] ^= (1 << bitnumb);
            bit_addr++;
        }

        return;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Triple Crown Potential, Discount Oil, Deflategate, and More: This Week's Odds
Here's our weekly odds about anything and everything important and unimportant.
www.GettyImages.com
Sean Hutchinson
1. American Pharoah Will Win the Triple Crown
www.kentuckyderby.com
A century of thoroughbred racing has produced only 11 Triple Crown winners, and none since Affirmed in '78. Many since have come close: 13 horses have won the first two legs of the Crown (the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness) only to lose the 1½-mile Belmont Stakes. Most recently, in 2008, Big Brown stormed into the Belmont Stakes as a 1-to-2 favorite, but didn't even finish the race, as jockey Kent Desmoreaux eased up on the home stretch. Physicals and blood tests revealed nothing out of the ordinary; a loose horseshoe eventually took the blame for the collapse. American Pharoah, winner of six straight races, will run for the Triple Crown on Saturday as a 10-to-11 betting favorite, with no other horse better than 9-to-2. History would caution against calling that a shoe-in, but I'm picking the horse that trainer Bob Baffert says is "on his game." Odds we see the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years: 10-to-11
2. Oil Will Take Its Sweet, Crude Time Getting Back to $80 a Barrel
www.picarcade.com
Iran's oil minister Bijan Zanganeh recently predicted the world price for oil will return to $80-per-barrel by 2017, down from the world peak price of $147.50 in 2008 and up from the current bargain of $59.97 per barrel. Experts agree that price can't last, but the road back to triple digits won't be swift. Production seems to be at an all-time high without major suppliers like Saudi Arabia reining in production to jack up prices. Still, it's gotta change sometime. Over/under for oil hitting $80: June 2017.
3. Martin O'Malley Will Challenge Hillary for the Democratic Presidential Nom in 2016
www.politico.com
Though it isn't official yet, former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley is likely to declare his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination during his May 30 "special announcement" he publicized over Twitter and Snapchat. O'Malley would join Vermont senator/Internet mascot Bernie Sanders and the unstoppable Hillary Clinton, as the major Democrat candidates in the running for President. That Hillary will get the nom seems at least as certain as Dewey beating Truman. But as CNN stated last week, O'Malley could bring a youthful spirit to a race that so far lacks much youth or spirit. CNN's sources say O'Malley would be taking a "general approach of running a fresher and less canned campaign," but then, no one ever announces their campaign is going to be stale and predictable. Odds that an O'Malley campaign will disrupt Hillary's machine: 6 to 1.
4. Tom Brady's Deflategate Suspension Won't Affect the Patriots This Season
Softening up some footballs has cost the New England Patriots $1 million, draft picks in 2016 and 2017, and Tom Brady's throwing services for the first four games of this season. How much of a pissa is this for fans in Massachusetts? Probably not much. Brady's participation in Pats games is worth about 7 points per game. FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers on the first four games of all the seasons Brady has been in the league (including the 2008 season he missed because of an injury), taking away the projected 6.5 or 7 points Brady ostensibly contributed to those games. Shaving off those Brady touchdowns between 2001 and 2014 took them out of playoff contention in 2005 and 2009, but left intact their Super Bowl wins (in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2014). Pats fans should embrace the extra month of rest for their starter, who will be 38 years old this season. The effects of the suspension are, shall we say, overinflated. Odds that New England wins the Super Bowl: 8-to-1.
5. '19 Kids and Counting' Will Get Canceled After Molestation Scandal
www.abcnews.com
Josh Duggar sucks. He recently confessed to molesting five underage girls, including some of his own sisters, roughly 10 years ago, when he was also underage. He's oldest of the titular brood on TLC's 19 Kids and Counting, an unabashed sideshow that documents the quirky lives and prolific loins of Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar. Josh was until recently the head of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay conservative lobby group. Once he confessed to his crimes, he resigned, TLC pulled his family's show. How likely are we to see the show again? When "Mama June" Shannon, the figurehead of another TLC piece of garbage moonlighting as a TV show called Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, was photographed with a registered sex offender in 2014, that show was canceled. The Duggars should also expect to stay dark. Odds that "19 Kids and Counting" ever returns to air: 20 to 1.