Disqus - Latest Comments for ryanradia

Re: Act fast to fly on a domestic United 747

Ryan Radia — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:41:29 -0000

The upper deck is already full!

Re: Flying Business Class as a Millennial

Ryan Radia — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:01:44 -0000

Often true, but it really depends on the route. NYC-LAX? There's plenty of demand for paid F and J. Same for SFO-HKG. Leisure routes, of course, are a different story.

Re: Flying Business Class as a Millennial

Ryan Radia — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:59:14 -0000

She recently reported a story from GIG, so that's presumably where she upgraded. Given that the photos depict AA's new reverse herringbone business class seat, she either flew DCA-JFK-GIG or DCA-MIA-GIG. Having upgraded in DCA, she was entitled to Admirals Club access in both DCA and MIA/JFK, but she only mentioned the origination airport for some reason.]

Re: Flying Business Class as a Millennial

Ryan Radia — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:53:40 -0000

UA and DL both offer free space-available upgrades to elites on domestic flights (excluding a tiny number of "premium" routes). AA does the same with its top-tier elites. But none of these airlines offer complimentary upgrades on long-haul international flights to any elites.

Re: Flying Business Class as a Millennial

Ryan Radia — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:51:54 -0000

Some airlines have experimented with auctions for premium seats that would otherwise go unsold. But the major US-based carriers don't want to make upgrades to cheap, especially on long-haul routes, because that "degrades" the product—which is code for encouraging flyers to roll the dice and hold out for a dirt cheap upgrade instead of confirming one at booking.

Re: A Frozen Property Problem

Ryan Radia — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:06:33 -0000

If Anna's magical resurrection were reasonably foreseeable, how would it affect the analysis? I'm blanking on which Restatement section is applicable to such a situation.

Re: Secession: A Brief Comment

Ryan Radia — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:21:05 -0000

For a powerful and compelling libertarian perspective to the contrary, check out Clint Bolick's 1993 classic, Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism, available at http://www.amazon.com/Grass...

Re: Secession: A Brief Comment

Ryan Radia — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:18:41 -0000

Not necessarily. Kinship with 4.5 million strangers may well result in inferior policies, and perhaps even fewer freedoms, than kinship with a much larger group.

As James Madison explains in Federalist Nos. 10 and 51, the competing factions that tend to emerge in representative governments often check and balance one another. Yet in smaller governance jurisdictions, it's more likely that one faction dominates others, whether because smaller competitors are outgunned or simply do not exist in any meaningful form.

The NIMBY problem illustrates this phenomenon: most people in a municipality are better off if cell towers can be easily built, condominiums readily erected, highways painlessly expanded, and so forth. But vocal minorities -- often composed of "assholes" to use a term of political science -- tend to dominate local politics in a way that isn't feasible on a grander scale.

Re: Network Non-Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity Rules Are Fundamental to Local Television

Ryan Radia — Mon, 19 May 2014 21:09:42 -0000

Imagine ABC decided that it would henceforth grant broadcasters only
non-exclusive rights upon renewal of each affiliate agreement. Given that network non-duplication protects only those rights that broadcasters have secured in contract, is there any regulation that would prevent a network from deciding to stop granting exclusive geographic rights? I ask because it seems to me that whether broadcasters' rights are protected by the FCC's network non-duplication rule or by common law courts, no MVPD would actually import a duplicative distant network signal unless it had the explicit consent of the distant station. Yet no distant station would so consent, unless it had permission from the network to do so, lest the station would face a crippling lawsuit from the network - and the station would surely lose, if affiliate agreements are as water-tight as I assume they are.

When the FCC started the ban on network duplication in 1965, the retransmission consent requirement did not exist. But now that we have retransmission consent, the network non-duplication rule seems like water under the bridge - because no MVPD can lawfully acquire network programming in the first place without getting it from a station or the network itself. If a network wanted to allow network duplication, it could begin doing so as soon as each affiliate agreement came up for renewal. But until that happens, why would a network stand idly while one of its affiliates resold network content to be imported by an MVPD in breach of its affiliate agreement? If the network thought it would be better off if its affiliates didn't enjoy geographic exclusivity, risking costly litigation from its affiliates would be an odd way of bringing about that result.

You make a good point that the ban on DRM hurts broadcasters' ability to effectively protect their content - both original and network programming - from copyright infringement. But MVPDs, unlike Aereo, are subject to the retransmission consent requirement. Regardless of whether a broadcaster uses DRM to protect its content, therefore, an MVPD can't retransmit its signal without its consent, right? If the network non-duplication rule were eliminated, presumably broadcasters fear that MVPDs would import distant signals with the consent of the originating station. Insofar the DRM ban hurts broadcasters, it's because it enables Aereo and others to rip off their content. But I have trouble seeing how an MVPD could get away with importing DRM-free distant signals without the originating station's consent, with or without the network non-duplication rule in place.

Re: Aspen Casebook Connect Textbooks Must Be Returned At End Of Class, Cannot Be Resold

Ryan Radia — Fri, 09 May 2014 02:36:50 -0000

Do you agree that Aspen's new policy essentially amounts to price discrimination? If so, it's worth noting that many economists believe that society tends to benefit from the practice. http://www.jstor.org/discov...

Re: Aspen Casebook Connect Textbooks Must Be Returned At End Of Class, Cannot Be Resold

Ryan Radia — Wed, 07 May 2014 20:58:21 -0000

Setting aside the copyright law question about whether this new policy might bind individuals who are not parties to the initial casebook "sale" (such as resellers who unwittingly buy casebooks sold by students in breach of their contract with Aspen), what's wrong with Aspen selling students a licensed digital copy that's accompanied by a physical casebook on a rental basis?

Assuming Aspen's contract is otherwise valid under principles of contract law - assume Aspen informs students of its terms before finalizing each transaction - wouldn't Aspen be free to charge students who fail to return their casebooks an agreed upon fee (say, $100)? As a business model, I fully understand why law professors oppose Aspen's move, but as a legal matter, what exactly is bizarre or problematic about Aspen's new policy?

Re: What Vox Doesn’t Get About the “Battle for the Future of the Internet”

Ryan Radia — Mon, 05 May 2014 19:54:56 -0000

Responding to (1), last year Comcast unveiled "Internet Plus" in many markets. It's a $70/month tier that includes broadband (with 25mbps downstream), local channels, HBO Go, and a handful of other channels.

As for (2), if network upgrades to facilitate interconnection are cheap, why doesn't Netflix just pay Comcast for them? Or are you claiming Comcast is overcharging Netflix? If so, isn't Comcast encouraging Netflix to add a "Comcast surcharge" that other ISP subscribers (including Comcast competitors) won't have to bear?

Re: Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, David

Ryan Radia — Sat, 28 Dec 2013 02:06:56 -0000

In general, ground ATC frequently uses the term "Delta" when giving taxi instructions (e.g., "Runway two-seven, taxi via Delta Two, Delta, Charlie Five"). The problem with ATL (Hartsfield) is that Delta more often refers to the airline Delta than the taxiway D. At most airports serviced by Delta, this isn't a major problem, as Delta only accounts for at most two or three of every ten flights. But at ATL, Delta is so dominant that replacing "Delta" with "David" should in theory reduce confusion between pilots and ATC.

Re: VC Reader Poll on Today’s Change in Senate Procedure (aka “the Nuclear Option”)

Ryan Radia — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:47:14 -0000

Doesn't work for me either, using Windows 8; tried both IE or FF.

Re: VC Bloggers on Twitter

Ryan Radia — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:39:56 -0000

Don't forget @RandyEBarnett - https://twitter.com/RandyEB.... Lately, he's been very active on twitter.

Re: Judge Rejects DoJ Motion to Dismiss Second Suit Against IRS Tax Credit Rule

Ryan Radia — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:28:58 -0000

The judge explained his ruling orally based on written notes, I believe. Not sure if a written opinion is available or forthcoming.

Re: CFPB’s Data-Mining Operations

Ryan Radia — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:34:41 -0000

I work on privacy issues at CEI, so let me take a stab at this.

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act tasks the CFPB with, among other duties, "monitoring . . . information relevant to the functioning of markets for consumer financial products and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper functioning of such markets." 12 U.S.C. § 5511(c)(3). Dodd-Frank further grants the CFPB "the authority to gather information from time to time regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and activities of covered persons and service providers." 12 U.S.C. § 5512(c)(4)(A). Under this authority, the CFPB may "gather and compile information from a variety of sources, including . . . surveys and interviews with covered persons and service providers, and review of available databases." 12 U.S.C. § 5512(c)(4)(B)(i). In gathering this information, however, the CFPB may not "obtain records from covered persons and service providers participating in consumer financial services markets for purposes of gathering or analyzing the personally identifiable financial information of consumers." 12 U.S.C. § 5512(c)(4)(C) (emphasis added).

In July 2013, Steven Antonakes, the CFPB's Acting Deputy Director, testified in a congressional hearing regarding the CFPB's access to consumer information. Examining How the CFPB Collects and Uses Consumer Data: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit of the H. Comm. on Financial Services, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Steven Antonakes, Acting Deputy Dir., CFPB). Antonakes stated in his written testimony that "the Bureau obtained through a third party about 10 years of de-identified credit record data representing approximately 4 percent of consumers" but noted that it "it does not analyze data that contains personal identifiers." Id. at 4. This comports with an April 2013 Bloomberg article alleging that the CFPB "demanding records from the banks and is buying anonymous information about at least 10 million consumers . . . ." Carter Dougherty, U.S. Amasses Data on 10 Million Consumers as Banks Object, Bloomberg, Apr. 17, 2013. Furthermore, the CFPB is creating a "National Mortgage Database . . . from commercially-available data . . . [that] will not contain personal identifiers such as names or social security numbers, and the agencies will implement safeguards against potential re-identification of individual borrowers." Id. at 2.

So we know that the CFPB is gathering lots of data about how Americans use financial services, while avoiding the collection of personally identifiable identifiers. If the Bureau is, in fact, compiling and analyzing effectively anonymized data sets, there is little reason for Americans to be concerned about this collection--at least from a privacy perspective.

In light of recent revelations regarding how other federal agencies and many of their congressional overseers interpret federal laws governing data collection, however, I'm glad to see that elected officials who care about--or purport to care about--individual privacy are working to ensure that all government agencies in the data collection business are abiding by their statutory and constitutional mandates. Consider the following excerpt from a recent USA Today op-ed by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

The phone-records tool is not some wildly intrusive surveillance program. In reality, what we are talking about is collection of "metadata," not content. No names, no addresses and absolutely no conversations. Just phone numbers.

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, NSA phone collection not intrusive: Opposing view, USA Today, July 25, 2013.

Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House committee responsible for overseeing the intelligence community, isn't alone in thinking Americans shouldn't worry about the privacy implications of the NSA's bulk telephony metadata collection program because the Agency isn't collecting "names" or "addresses." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Mike Rogers, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Director of the National Security Agency Keith Alexander have offered similar "reassurances" regarding the telephony metadata program. Granted, Dodd-Frank's provisions bear little semblance to the FISA and PATRIOT Act provisions that govern intelligence agencies. Still, the CFPB is cut from the same cloth as the NSA. Therefore, although the CFPB's data sets probably omit names, social security numbers, and addresses, it's not inconceivable that they also include other fields that would permit re-identification. Properly de-identifying data sets is harder than it seems; plenty of supposedly anonymized data sets have been subsequently re-identified by third parties. See, e.g., Christine Porter, De-Identified Data and Third Party Data Mining: The Risk of Re-Identification of Personal Information, 5 Shidler J.L. Com. & Tech. 3 (2008) (discussing how two data sets, released by AOL and Netflix, respectively, enabled re-identification of individual search queries and movie viewership data).

Even if the CFPB's data sets are susceptible to re-identification, as you point out, perhaps Americans should be willing to pay the resulting price in terms of privacy if it means more effective monitoring of financial institutions. However, that's not what Congress intended when it enacted the Bureau's enabling statute. If the Bureau believes it needs to collect data sets that could, in theory, be used to link specific payment card transactions to particular individuals, it's up to the Bureau and like-minded people to affirmatively make the case for permitting such collection. I happen to believe that the bulk suspicionless collection of private individual information by government, whether compelled directly from individuals or from the companies with whom they transact, ought to be off-limits absent a very good reason otherwise. I'm also sympathetic to the argument that the Fourth Amendment, properly construed, actually forbids such collection, barring exigent circumstances. See Jim Harper, Reforming Fourth Amendment Privacy Doctrine, 57 Am. U. L. Rev. 1381 (2008).

Re: Is the Federal Government Shutdown Forcing the Closure of Privately Run Facilities?

Ryan Radia — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 03:50:33 -0000

Why not just let the trash pile up until the shutdown ends? An overflowing trash can here and there is annoying, sure, but so is a government agency disabling its static website. Or am I unaware of some statute that forbids federal agencies from allowing trash to accumulate on federal lands due to budgetary limitations?

Re: Why the 14th Amendment Option Is Not on the Table

Ryan Radia — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:42:09 -0000

You are correct about the importance of cash flow, but what's the evidence that projected incoming tax receipts and other revenues will not suffice to cover interest expenses -- if nothing else -- on any given day in the foreseeable future?

Re: “Terrorism,” “Hostage-Taking,” and the Government Shutdown

Ryan Radia — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:17:25 -0000

Right. Whereas the filibuster is a rule, per Senate Rule XXII, as it binds the Senate until such time as that body chooses to rewrite the rule (which only requires a simple majority), the so-called "Hastert rule" is merely a norm, and a weakly-enforced one at that. As The Atlantic explained in July, four of the nine bills that had passed the 113th Congress at that time enjoyed mostly Democratic support in the House, thereby violating the "Hastert rule." That the Speaker nevertheless allowed these four bills, among others, to come to the floor illustrates that the Hastert rule is merely a norm. See http://www.theatlantic.com/....

Re: “Terrorism,” “Hostage-Taking,” and the Government Shutdown

Ryan Radia — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:42:09 -0000

I assumed the OP was referring to all those voting "aye" on the 9/29 House amendments to the Senate CR as Tea Partiers. Apparently I was mistaken.

In any event, 218 members of the House can bring to the floor legislation without the Speaker's blessing, via a discharge petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik.... Also, if a majority of the House is upset with the Speaker's decisions as to which bills come before the full chamber, they can replace him with a new Speaker.

Re: “Terrorism,” “Hostage-Taking,” and the Government Shutdown

Ryan Radia — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:06:55 -0000

Didn't the entire House vote on Sep. 29 to pass the Senate continuing resolution, as amended? Are you claiming some duly elected representatives were improperly denied the right to vote on these resolutions? See Roll Call votes #497-98 - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/....

Re: “Terrorism,” “Hostage-Taking,” and the Government Shutdown

Ryan Radia — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:47:19 -0000

Setting aside the merits of the House GOP's tactic with respect to this particular program (PPACA), how can it be that a governmental program, once enacted by Congress, cannot be properly curtailed without amending its enabling statute? Appropriating funds to sustain a program that exists over the course of multiple Congresses is a choice for each Congress to make, perhaps on multiple occasions. If one chamber doesn't want to fund a particular program, why shouldn't its members be free to vote accordingly? Granted, leveraging the possibility of a government shutdown to defund a disfavored program may be unwise in many, or even almost all, situations, but I don't see how it's "pure, dishonest gimmickry" or a "loophole."

Re: “Terrorism,” “Hostage-Taking,” and the Government Shutdown

Ryan Radia — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:36:07 -0000

When they won a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives pursuant to a lawful election. (One could fairly point out that the GOP won fewer votes than Democrats, but the courts have generally held gerrymandering to be constitutionally permissible, for better or worse.)

Re: “Terrorism,” “Hostage-Taking,” and the Government Shutdown

Ryan Radia — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:33:23 -0000

Regarding this point:

Congress COULD Constitutionally allocate to itself each a share of the total national assets and walk away wealthy. Nothing Unconstitutional.

You are wrong. Per the 27th amendment, Congress cannot raise (or lower) the salaries of its members until the start of the next term, giving the voters an opportunity to elect new representatives if unhappy with a pay hike. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...