First question is from double O silk drop. What is the best way to breathe during your heavy lifts? Hmm. You know what? That's I'm glad it was asked this way because breathing during heavy lifts is a little bit different than breathing doing during high rep sets or When you're doing stretches or mobility type stuff So the best way to breathe When you're doing a heavy lift and I'm gonna I'm gonna assume this is really low reps too So we're not talking about you know, we're talking about heavy low rep sets You want to take a deep breath in and then you want to brace your core Then you want to do your heavy lift as you come up You could do two things either one if it's especially if it's really low reps You can let your breath out at the top of the rep when you're done So you hold your breath the entire time or two you let it out while Bracing your core and in keeping your diaphragm active and tight. So it sounds like Yeah, you know like breathing through your teeth Yeah, really staying like braced and tight, but like it's it's like restrictive air that's coming out Yeah, some will just flat out say hold breath like it's a lot of like your even your most advanced power lifters When they do a heavy bench press a heavy deadlifter a heavy squat They get in position they and they brace their core and when they brace they tense and hold breath for that rep Yeah, and then at the top of the rep is still going That's right. I was just gonna say it's that I I will allow the the breath to come out, but I'll do that I'll grunt or I'll make a sound and that's my way of Letting the breath out very controlled, you know, they by the way, this is a technique They teach a lot of practices in yoga. I was gonna say have you done any of those pregnancy breathing classes? Do they do that are fun, dude? Yeah.  It'll be better You know the hilarious thing is I was in a class with that and you have like for the husband's or the guys there Whatever they made us like put our hand in ice and hold it and like try and breathe through it I'm like this is nothing to do with with the pain they're gonna experience. I feel like I can do this all day Even bigger trouble honey, listen, I know I know what it's like.   What do you hear? Muay Thai fighters.  So when you're getting those heavy breaths you deep breath in Hold it like imagine you're doing a squat go down as you come up either continue to hold your breath Or do what I do which is breathe out but through a grunt or you know through pressure This is where those core activating techniques kind of come into play when you're doing like cat cow or whatever And you're just trying to brace and then teach your client then how to keep that tightness But now breathe through it and like you know be able to still do that because you want it to be natural too at the Same time you don't want to think you have to consciously think about how you're breathing while you're doing your reps You end up getting dizzy and like ruins your performance Well, the link the only time I see this go wrong is when when you give that it we give that advice to kind of like hold Your breath through which is totally fine for a heavy lift a single lift Is you hold it someone who's lifting like let's say five heavy reps And they think it's a good idea to hold your breath the entire time through five reps No, you'd have to you'd have to breathe in between right every rep you reset, right? You it would that be deadlifting squatting bench pressing overhead whatever you're doing You can hold and brace for that one lift and then breathe again hold embrace for that next one, too Even catch your breath at the top. That's two or three. Yeah. No, absolutely But now this this this isn't necessarily what you'd want to do with a high rep set Right, like I'm not doing 20 reps of squats and doing that for every rep I would end up. Yeah, no way it wouldn't work. I'd be doing it'd be 30 minutes of squats So with with that with the higher reps you you tend to breathe in on the way down breathe out on the way up No, that's the advice that is that that is the generic typical advice But because you know, we advocate for manipulating with tempo meaning that there's times where you might do a Four six second negative You're not going to breathe on that cadence And so what I used to tell clients is the most important thing when we're lifting weights and we're doing this Is that you remember to breathe because some people will because it's challenging or hard They get in their head so much they they hold their breath the entire time because they're like look paying attention to what they're doing They don't realize they're tensing up and hold I do this like when I'm concentrating.  You want to breathe breathe in and out normal That's the idea while you're doing that the only time that I would say you can hold your breath is for single reps at a time when you're doing you want it for tension. Okay now.  So breathing is very important. Just think of it this way holding your breath or breathing tensely That's when you want tension breathing smooth and slow. That's when you want things to be relaxed


NATO chief warns of lines war in Ukraine. NATO Secretary General has warned that Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine might be protracted and has urged Ukraine's Western allies to continue supporting Kiev. We have to understand that President Putin is ready to be in this war for a long time and to launch new offensive. The way to prevent that is to support Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told AFP on December 16th. Stoltenberg noted that the alliance must remain vigilant over Russia's possible use of nuclear weapons, despite recent decline in Vladimir Putin's nuclear threat rhetoric. The NATO chief also reiterated in his earlier comments that Ukraine must be provided with more weapons until Vladimir Putin understands that he cannot win on the battlefield. He stressed, however, that this war will end at the negotiation temple, as most wars do. Noting that there are discussions about NATO's deliver of patriot systems to Ukraine, Stoltenberg stressed that sufficient amount of ammunition and spare parts are sent to Ukraine. We have a dialogue among allies on additional systems, but it becomes more and more important to ensure that all the systems that are delivered are functional, he explained.


Great. Thank you. Welcome back. I'm Tim Brighlin, the chair of the House Energy and Technology Committee. It is Wednesday, March 23rd. And this is our 1030 hearing, and we are going to, excuse me, turn our attention to a topic that this committee worked on intensively back in, I think it was 2018 prior to my time on the committee. And there's a few members of the committee who are veterans of that discussion. This is around net neutrality. And in 2018, this committee and the legislature passed a bill around net neutrality and were then subsequently sued by a number of interested parties, I'll say. And that lawsuit has gone on for a number of years. And there's been some resolution on some of those issues, maybe not full resolution, but we're headed towards resolution on some of those issues nationally as other states have passed laws with regard to net neutrality and those have wound their way through the court system. We are joined today by Maria Royal, our legislative council on these issues. It's great to see you in person, Maria. Thanks for joining us. And also by Josh Diamond, who's the deputy attorney general in the attorney general's office. And that office has been defending Vermont with regard to that lawsuit. And we're going to hear from Josh in a few minutes as well on some update on the work of his office. Maria, I'm really pleased that you can be with us this morning to kind of first and foremost give us, I guess, a refresher. It's been four years since the legislature passed a law on this. And if you can refresh us on what that law does, why this lawsuit ensued and kind of where things stand today in this regard would be really helpful. So thanks for being here. Great. I'm happy to be back. I haven't been back in this committee since last session. So I was trying not to take it personally. I've been invited back. I thought things ended well, but maybe not. It did end well. So yes. And thanks for picking such an easy, simple subject to turn on. So your introductory comments actually summed up very nicely what I'm planning to talk about and also kind of the status of things and some of the issues for you to think about going forward. So yes, in 2018, Vermont, along with a number of other states introduced and passed legislation on net neutrality, California being one of the other states, and we'll talk about that momentarily, but kind of the broader background on net neutrality. And please, I never know exactly how much into the weeds to get on some of these subjects. And I don't want to get too bogged down, but just sort of big picture because I think what you will quickly realize is an area that's in an extreme state of flux, a lot of legal uncertainty. So I wanted to just kind of give some background, talk about where things are at the federal level and now more importantly, where things are at the state level. Ray, I apologize for interrupting and maybe you're about to go here, but taking us back to 2018 and why we felt a need to adopt that law, I think it's kind of critical understanding how we got. Absolutely. So at the federal level, there has been an ongoing policy debate as to whether or not broadband internet access service should be regulated like a utility, not necessarily as stringently as other utilities like electric companies, but whether the FCC should have authority to impose requirements on how that service is offered, or whether there should be more of a non regulatory approach, kind of the light touch approach. So that's been different administrations typically have very different policy viewpoints on what's best for deploying broadband and achieving greater access throughout the country. So in 2015, that's when the FCC adopted its original net neutrality rules. Of course, they weren't called net neutrality rules. That's just the term of art that's been used. That was the 2015 open internet order. And so it blocked it banned behavior such as blocking behaviors of the internet service provider. So you can't block a consumer's access to certain content. You can't throttle slow down access to certain websites for commercial purposes, right? Or favor your own businesses or the businesses of your affiliates. So this was all geared around fair competition and that people have access to the internet in an unfettered way. And the other kind of role, bright line role was the ban on paid prioritization. So some content providers couldn't pay and have a faster lane because that might make it harder for other smaller companies that want to offer services as well. So all of it was designed to ensure that there aren't anti-competitive practices going on. And there are some other related issues as well. So with the change in administration under President, then President Trump and the new chair, Ajit Pai, those rules were essentially rollback or repealed. And the way that that was done is they reclassified what broadband service is under the Communications Act. That's been kind of at the heart of this. How do you classify broadband? And so you'll recall there are basically two categories. There's an information service and there's a telecommunication service. And if it's an information service under Title I of the Communications Act, the FCC does not have authority to impose net neutrality rules or any kind of what are called common carrier rules. So their authority is very limited if it's considered an information service. If it's a telecommunication service, then technically you could regulate like you traditionally regulate telephone companies. There's much broader authority. So that's how the FCC has been giving itself more authority by reclassifying it or saying that it's a telecommunication service or defining it as an information service and saying we're not going to regulate and we don't really even have the authority. This is something that should be dealt with by the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice under their authority. So that was in 2017 that that Restoring Internet Freedom Order was adopted. And in 2018 is when many states then responded and they said well if the FCC is not going to act or impose these protection, consumer protections, many states felt that there should be some regulation in this area. So Vermont actually considered a number of proposals at that time. There was a bill, I think it was H360, I'm not sure, I have to go back and look. House bill that was very similar to what California has done basically took all of the FCC rules and applied them in Vermont. It also had other proposals saying that if you want to get a 248A permit, if you want to receive a federal estate grant for broadband, a whole number of other things you would have to comply with net neutrality rules. Yeah, I'm doing it. Okay. Yeah, I would just, as you're describing this, I would actually like to say because you were the drafter of that. I mean at one point the ACLU had looked and said Vermont has the strongest bill being, you know, considered right now on net neutrality. We had some places that we went after that but we were actually, anyway. Yes. Well, unfortunately Marie has a terrible memory. So Marie has to go back and reread everything. But yeah, so there was, at least in the house, or at least in energy and technology, there was broad consideration of a number of proposals. Ultimately, I don't think that bill was voted out of committee. The Senate took S-289, which was a bill that originally had to do with privacy protections, Internet Privacy, and then did a strike all amendment and made it all about net neutrality. Specifically, the Senate and the whole body chose to just proceed in a more narrow direction and apply net neutrality requirements for any provider that wants a government contract for Internet service. So if a provider is contracting with a state entity to provide Internet service as part of that contract, to get that contract, it would have to certify that it would comply with net neutrality requirements, similar requirements to the original FCC. So a very narrow approach ultimately passed. And was that just for the state contractor? Or was that for any customer connected to that carrier, if that carrier created? Any customer. So yes, so if the provider had to agree to, in Vermont, that it would provide net neutrality, yes, statewide if it wanted that government contract. So that was Act 169. And so a couple of things start happening. One, the state is sued. Two, with a federal level, that FCC order, the Trump Administration Restoring Internet Freedom Order, that was immediately challenged in federal court. So it began this kind of, what kind of authority does the state have, what ultimately is going to happen with the federal attempt to roll back net neutrality. So there was a lot of uncertainty. And I'm going to let Josh kind of talk about some of the negotiations around the Vermont law, because he can explain in greater detail that the Vermont law was never enforced. There was kind of a stay pending the outcome of some of the litigation. So particularly the Mozilla case, that was the case that looked at the Restoring Internet Freedom Order to determine whether the SC actually had authority to reclassify broadband as an information service, whether it followed the APA. And then significantly, as part of that order, the FCC issued what it called the preemption directive, basically preempting all state laws that related to regulation of broadband or any attempt to reimpose net neutrality or do anything that they had opted not to do. It was incredibly broad preemption. So that began going through the court system and ultimately the DC Court of Appeals have held the reclassification. And the big takeaway from that is the DC Court of Appeals said, we're going to defer to the FCC. If you want to call it an information service, you can. If you want to call it a telecommunication service, you can. What's a little bit problematic for people like me who would want some certainty, you don't have a policy agenda here, is next administration, change in policy, they can revert back. Another course might have been to say, what is the best interpretation? But the court chose not to do that. And pretty much said that the FCC has the authority to define it as it sees fit. So that's just kind of a signal that things might change now under President Biden. I will also just note that you probably are following the news as well. The FCC, there are currently four members on the FCC, two Republicans, two Democrats, the fifth member, the nomination is Gigi Sohn. She has yet to be confirmed. And I don't know that she will be confirmed. That's still in limbo. A lot of people expected under the Biden administration that there would be a revisiting of this issue and potentially a reclassification of internet once again going back to kind of the original Obama era 2015. So everyone's kind of waiting to see will Gigi Sohn be confirmed? And if she is confirmed, will the FCC take action once again on this subject? Yep. Also, one of the other Democratic members, their term expires this summer. So has the potential to go down to a two to one? Yeah. Oh, interesting. I hadn't even looked at their current term limits. So yes. So just wanted to kind of note that and also note that at the federal level, Congress at any time can of course pass a law addressing this issue. And that's something that right, no, but that that's actually interesting. Well, one of the things that I found interesting is Commissioner, then Commissioner Pi himself said that he would support a law that banned blocking and throttling and paid prioritization. I think his real concern was not so much about those prohibitions, but on the characterization of broadband as a title to utility like service kind of the fear of other regulations and authority. I think that's kind of where the real concern is not so much on the net neutrality rules. But in any event, the Mozilla court, the DC court struck down this broad preemption and pretty much put it back to the states and said that states have authority to regulate intra state broadband, which was significant because people tried to characterize broadband and it is in part an inter state service. But I think a lot of some folks thought it's it's mostly interstate states shouldn't they should be totally preempted. This is a service that under the commerce laws should be in the realm of the national government. So significant that the Mozilla court said that states have authority to regulate the services within their borders. But potentially, but we're going to have to review them or they should be reviewed on a case by case basis to see whether or not they conflict with the communications act or with FCC policy or some other constitutional constraint at the commerce clause. So at that point, the California law, which has again the more expansive all of the net neutrality rules imposed in California was took effect and was immediately challenged. At that time, and again, Josh can speak more to the details, there was some thinking of let's see how this plays out in California before Vermont continues with its litigation. So most recently, so the industry filed a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of that California law, which was heard by the district court. And in a ruling from the bench, the district court judge said, you know, in brief, that you have not shown that you're likely to succeed on the merits at this stage. And so denied the injunction that immediately was repealed to the ninth circuit. And the ninth circuit just this year issued an opinion affirming that denial of the injunction. So a couple things to note about that and looked at whether this broad California law conflicted with federal policy or the communications act at a preliminary level, right? Because hasn't the evidence hasn't been taken. There isn't a lot to go from it was just a matter of based on the legal issues at stake, had they made a strong case that they were likely to prevail and the ninth circuit said you have not met that burden. And now it's back, the litigation will continue, the evidence will be collected. So that's kind of where things are in brief at the federal level and at the state level and Vermont can. So like I said, there was a second stay of Vermont's litigation pending the outcome of the California preliminary injunction. And I'll let Josh kind of kind of update more on where things stand. So yeah, so Maria, and I don't I think this is a question for you maybe for Josh as well. But you know, in terms of I was here, I think representing the end touch goes here when we did net neutrality, you know, and we heard over and over again, you know, you, you can't do this from the providers, you can't, you can't regulate us. We can't have a patchwork of, you know, different laws across the country. So you just simply can't like why are you bothering to do this? You can't. And so what I'm hearing you say is with, well, I don't know if I'm hearing you say what I want clarity on is where we stand right now as a body. When we think about regulating internet service providers, both fixed and wireless, you know, what would you say to us as you know, when we're thinking about potentially regulating them beyond, say, Act 248. What does the current landscape say? What would your advice be to us? Well, so certainly the Mozilla opinion opened that door, right? Because they could have simply either have held the preemption directive or said that this is largely an interstate service and the states can't really regulate. So the door has been opened. Why? So and that's some guidance, right? But it's not entirely clear because they said you have to review this on a case by case basis. And the reason is because it's, first of all, depends what the state is doing, right? If it's a narrow approach like Vermont or if it's something broad like California, states have different, they're tackling this issue in different ways. But also, the market is different in different states. The choice of providers is going to be different in different states. So the need or the level of competition is going to be different. So all of those facts will have a bearing on what kind of authority the state has to protect its consumers under its traditional police powers, right? So I would say based on the Ninth Circuit, looking at the conflict preemption issues, implied preemption, whether whether the state action, like so they looked at the expanse of language in California and said, if California does this, is this conflicting with the policy of non-regulation? And they basically said, they haven't shown that yet, but it's going to go to trial and there will be evidence presented. Then, you know, they looked at it, would it be impossible for a provider to comply with the California law? And simultaneously, you know, is it to put the provider in this odd position because in other states, they're not being required to follow net neutrality or there's this non-regulation theory, like what basically the court rejected all of those theories of preemption. So the, you know, I think that it's not entirely clear because things that you that are relevant that you will look at, what is the state of the market? What is the burden on the providers? How technologically feasible is it for the provider to comply with Vermont's laws and not in other, not other states if they don't enact similar requirements? What are the costs and what are the benefits? What are and what way, what's Vermont's goal? You know, what are you trying to achieve? So all of those kind of policy decisions that to the extent that you are very clear and narrowly tailor your law, which could be a broad law, but I'm just saying to the extent that you identify that, you'll make a stronger case for why it might be needed in Vermont. So I just mean, I look across the landscape and see that, you know, there's just so much activity towards keeping that kind of status quo of no regulation, including, you know, preventing active work to prevent that fifth FCC person from being seated, you know, and we've got this kind of environment that we can't protect consumers. And so, you know, I feel like that's changing with the court decisions, even despite the FCC potentially not being seated. Right. And from the provider's perspective, too, if they see that things are kind of changing and states might be more active and there's some authority there, then it might, they might take more of a stronger initiative to have Congress do something at the federal level so that there's this national uniformity and they don't have to, you know, so things are constantly shifting in response to court decisions and FCC actions. I don't even know if this is a question or a comment, but we know where this has come up in the last two years, maybe it was a year ago, particularly regionally, is questions around data caps, where there have been certain companies that have looked to impose, you know, I guess one way to characterize it, discriminatory pricing. But, you know, in terms of how different consumers, you know, would be priced in terms of, you know, how much literally from a value metric standpoint, how much they could download and what, you know, what the pricing of that would be. And, you know, the question of, is that a, you know, is that a form of not neutrality in terms of how customers can access certain types of data that might be preferred from a certain provider relative to other types of data. And there's, there was a lot of pushback, I know, from constituents in Vermont who contacted their legislators about that, and I know that was a big issue in Massachusetts. So, you know, that's another thing that is kind of bubbled to the surface as to how, you know, how this issue might play out. And so. Yeah, yes. And I'm actually glad you brought that up because I think one thing to keep in mind with respect to the, you know, kind of the bans and the regulation is that so providers are allowed to engage in reasonable network management practices. So if they need to limit data because they're, you know, they're too many, they don't have to band with, right? So there's, there are reasonable network management, all of the, all of the rules had, you know, a waiver that said this, but in terms of a commercial decision to prefer some provider or some content over others, that is problematic. It's particularly problematic in an industry that has so consolidated in the sense that you have the owner of the network, the transmission also an owner of an affiliate that provides content and you, of course, want to favor your content. And so that is extremely problematic. And that the term for in terms of the data cap is zero, it's called zero, sometimes it's referred to as zero rating. So you might have a data cap as a consumer and a lot of consumers might have the same data cap. And that might be a reasonable ban, you know, management practice, but if you're going to exclude your content from that data cap and save unlimited access to this particular content, you know, then you're giving a competitive advantage to a particular and that contravenes basic notion of open and open internet. So that practices is frowned upon. And I think I have to look at the California law. I think that that I don't know if they specifically mentioned zero rating in the paid prioritization section or if it's going to be interpreted as banning. So I'll have to look at that. I think that was a question about whether the net neutrality rules covered zero rating. And I think a lot of people thought that it did. That was exactly the kind of anti competitive conduct that they were trying to deter. Great. Thank you for that background. That was really helpful for me just to kind of bring me up to 2022 on this. So great. Josh, you want to join us and thank you for being here in person. And you know, one of the things I'm hopeful you can kind of bring us up to speed on is just again the path of this lawsuit in the last four years and you know, where things stand right now and and also just kind of what the road ahead look like in terms of enforcement of this of this law. So thanks for being here. Yeah, it's a treat to see everyone here in person. Chair Bruggeman members of the committee, Joshua Diamond, Deputy Attorney General. So as Legh Council kind of set the stage and thank you. There was litigation brought within months of Act 169 being passed brought by American Cable Association and other trade associations whose members are internet service providers. And they raised two legal claims. One was that based upon the 2017 Storing Internet Freedom Order that the states were expressly preempted from legislating or regulating in this space. They also brought a second claim, which hasn't I think really received a lot of attention through the courts today, which is a dormant Commerce Clause defense as well. So when the case got underway and there were I think a motion to dismiss was filed by the state of Vermont. What we realized was that we did not have a place in our case to challenge the underlying order that was creating this express preemption because it's something called the Hobbs Act, which requires you to challenge federal regulations, at least with the FCC in the circuit courts of appeals. And we had done that already in the DC circuit with about 21 other states and there were some other private parties as well called Mozilla, the Mozilla case versus the FCC and thought it would be prudent that that would have bearing on our litigation here in Vermont. And so we in consultation with legislative leadership, the governor's office and a recognition that thankfully we were not receiving consumer complaints that we were aware of that industry was engaged in anti net neutrality concepts, the throttling the blocking the paid preference. And therefore, to diminish our exposure, we agreed to stay the litigation here in Vermont, but also to stipulate that we would not enforce violations of Act 169 during the pendency of the Mozilla case. So the Mozilla case ruling, I believe came out, I want to say 2020 early 2020. And we needed to wait to see whether that was going to get appealed to the Supreme Court and then a final decision was rendered in July of 2020. That was non-appealable. And as you heard from Ledge Council, the the upshot of that decision was we're going to leave the order in place, except as it applies to the preemption principles, because if the FCC, the court rationalized a reason that if you don't have the authority to regulate, you can't then impose a regulatory a regulatory construct on the states, but that's that's inconsistent. Now that's in the DC circuit. We're here in the second circuit that includes New York. And meanwhile, there's a case now starting up, as you just heard previously, in California, that deals with their law regulating net neutrality. And the feeling was again in consultation with legislative leadership, the governor's office and a recognition that we weren't getting consumer complaints about industry engaged in practices that would be inconsistent with net neutrality principles, that again, it would be prudent to continue the state of our litigation pending the outcome of the ninth circuit litigation. And that litigation, as we know today, is about a preliminary injunction. It's not the full merits. And that decision was rendered, I believe in late February of this year, essentially upholding the or denying the preliminary injunction, saying that there was not a likelihood of success on the merits, because the preemption issue that industry was hanging their hat on for purposes of the preliminary injunction, that that express preemption wasn't there. They went along with a Mozilla nationalization. Technically, we don't have a final order on that appeal, because there's now a motion for what's called an on bonk hearing. So in the kind of the arcane practice of appellate practice before the federal circuits, you have panels, let's say you've got 12 judges, you usually get a panel of three. And if the panel gives you an adverse decision, you have one of two options. You can ask the appellate court to seat the entire court to hear all the judges, that's on bonk, or you go to the Supreme Court and ask to be heard. And pending before the ninth circuit is this request to have the entire panel to hear the decision or to review the decision from that panel. But in our stipulation, we had a time bound, we didn't want it to be open-ended forever. So the way that the stipulation of the stay reads and was incorporated into an order here in our courts was that either we get a final decision from the ninth circuit on the PI motion, the preliminary injunction motion, or April 15, 2022. So that this wasn't completely open-ended. And in light of what has happened in the DC circuit and what has happened in the ninth circuit, we think that there's enough to say, okay, let's go forward and start enforcing the law and making the law operational. Now I'm going to put a big asterisk there because there's now some activity going on here in the second circuit that could have direct bearing on us. So from our perspective, come April 15, Vermont will be able to fully enact Act 169 going forward. But there is still litigation that can impact us. In the second circuit, New York passed not on necessarily net neutrality, but tried to regulate internet service providers by requiring a lower tariff, if you will, or monthly fee for low-income folks. And the industry challenged that on the same basis, saying the 2017 order preempts you from regulating like a telecom or an electric utility. And the trial court heard a motion for preliminary injunction and ruled in favor of industry on that and said that the DC circuit got it wrong on the preemption analysis. And currently that is being appealed to the second circuit court of appeals, which would have direct, the outcome of that case could have direct bearing on our trial court litigation here in Vermont. So if I just may finish the thought and then take the question, if that's okay. So in talking with plaintiff's counsel, we have agreed to stay the litigation here in Vermont, not the implementation of the law, just the litigation, and wait to see what the second circuit does. Because hopefully they'll fall in line with the ninth circuit as well as the DC circuit. But our trial courts have to hear and let follow the law as interpreted by the second circuit, at least in the federal court system. And that's why we thought it would be proven. It's kind of getting our cake and eating it too. We hedge our risk against attorneys fees, but we can go forward and start fully implementing the law. Thanks, Josh. My question is around the second with the activity in the second circuit, which I have not been following. Can you just say a little bit more about that? So the law that is being challenged requires providers to provide a lower income rate. Yes. So it's the requirement of to provide a lower income rate that is the is the the underlying practice. So it's not analogous in that sense to our law, but the legal principle that's being challenged would have direct bearing whether or not the state of New York is preempted under the 2017 order from taking that type of action. And obviously, we're not going to resolve that legal issue here. But those seem there seems to be a fork in the road there in terms of kind of preemptive issues that are being addressed. And I don't understand well enough kind of the legal construct as to how you would differentiate kind of regulating an industry in terms of pricing relative to regulating an industry in terms of again, is this a communications, you know, slash telecommunications service and what kind of constraint can a state relative to the federal government place on that service that those seem to be two, you know, two different kind of regulatory tasks. And I'm not sure if what the courts going to try and untangle is are those two different things. And we can look at one from a federal preemption issue, but maybe segment the other as not subject to kind of those preemptive issues. I don't I don't know. But is that essentially what is going to what is going to be rolled with that? Well, I'm not sure it's going to get into the ladder issue of distinguishing between the two. It might. But I think it's a more fundamental legal question. So the case that's before the Second Circuit is also on this kind of narrow procedural posture, which is granting a preliminary injunction. Is it reasonably is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits? And what the trial court said was that this effort of regulation by New York is preempted by the 2017 order, which basically says states can't regulate ISPs. You're you're expressly preempted. They also got into what's called field preemption as well. So the question of preemption is before the Second Circuit. And they will rule, make a legal ruling as to, I think, the fundamental question that Mozilla addressed, which was, could the FCC expressly preempt states from regulating in this space when you've classified this as information as opposed to telecommunications? It could devolve into other reasoning, but I think that is the more fundamental question that we're trying to to get answered. Second Circuit. So is the is a litigation that we're talking about strictly with Vermont and the parties that are challenging it? Or is it are there other states involved? In our case, it's just Vermont. Just Vermont. Okay. Kind of coming back to to where to the chair's comments and just to see, wanted to make sure I actually have this right in my head. I mean, in the two different situations, so in the District 9 and District 2. So the net neutrality is really about whether or not we can interfere in ISPs regulation of prioritization and within their network. And this is around pricing of their product. But right. Still under the umbrella of regulating. Period. Right. Yeah. Both of them are, we've both in both cases actions have been taken by states to regulate Internet service providers. And so the one that we're involved in is around prioritization and whether or not for instance, you know, you should be able to shut down all new sources except for one that is free and all others cost a lot more to receive, for instance. And the low income is in District 2. Okay. And whether or not you can require providers to provide a low income service. And so I guess right. And so we go back to the classification because, you know, what is this? Is this a luxury item? Is this not a daily necessity? Is this something that is required for modern life, which certainly is what I would say. And in which case that classification really doesn't change. So that's something if it's required for daily life. Sorry. I'm just kind of talking around this, making sure that I have this right in my head. So it is a different type of regulation. It's possible that the court could go down a different path that are different legal theories. But I think the central question which has bearing on us is how the court looks at the fundamental question of express preemption, whether the 2017 order expressly preempts state's ability to regulate in this space. Right. But they seem to have already sent a pretty strong signal in that regard. Certainly the DC circuit did in the 9th circuit and hopefully the 2nd circuit will follow suit. Right. And I guess that's why I a little bit differentiate maybe from a legal perspective. It's not at all. But for the courts and maybe this was New York state's intention in kind of forcing, you know, in fact when we were working on our broadband bill last year, I think right as we were kind of getting to the conclusion of that process is when New York came out with this requirement that ISPs, their state, offer, I think it was a $15, $15, $25.  And it was quite obvious there was going to be a lawsuit on that and there was. But that, you know, depending on where this lawsuit goes, that would open up a huge, I'll say, opportunity to regulate from a price perspective as, you know, states could go in and say and regulate not just for low income folks, but for everyone. Here's what the cost of 100 over 100 plan is going to be in the state. And we are going to set that price that, you know, that seems like a very different type of regulation than, you know, than what was being contemplated in reaction to the 2017 FCC order. But I'm going to go to have one first then learn. I'm curious in all of these cases and in arguing Vermont's case, you know, or when New York did, how much is limited in the court process to really just did this court get it right? Or did this order match the law? And how much can you make broader arguments about the necessity for this as demonstrated by COVID and the need, the public need to have full access to the internet, which is, you know, we all understand what I'm saying. In New York's case, to provide access for low income people to me is like, if I was arguing that case, I'd say we've seen how much disadvantaged lower income people are in this time because they don't all are not all able to have access. I'm just curious how much of the public policy issue can be argued in the court cases. Without getting into judicial decision making philosophy and, you know, arguing that it's always good to provide the policy context because that helps inform judges about how they decide kind of the Brandeis brief concept. I think you have to look at the legal claims. So the express preemption is, I think from where I sit, just a sheer legal claim. Do you have the authority to even act in this space, regardless of the strength of the policy argument? The second claim that's in our case is the dormant commerce clause, which is more of a balancing test. Have you excessively burdened interstate commerce and where you get into those issues where I think the fact the factual policy arguments would be more influential, but you got to get through that first legal threshold question. Do you even have the legal authority to regulate in this space? Yeah. So Josh, what happens if District 2 comes to a different conclusion than District 9? Does that automatically then set up the going to the Supreme Court? I don't want to prognosticate on what the final outcome would be in our case, but trial courts within the second circuit, which includes Vermont, are bound to follow the law of the circuit. So if there was an adverse ruling on express preemption, that would create a higher bar for us. Okay. And so just to kind of start to bring our discussion to a conclusion, where things stand right now is as of April 15th, it looks as if Vermont will have a clear path to begin to enforce its law. What I'm also hearing is that there have been few and maybe zero consumer complaints with concerns about issues under net neutrality. And what would the effect be relative to today Vermont beginning to enforce this law? Will there be an effect on ISPs or consumers? I'm not aware of consumer complaints in this realm. You know, I'm not saying I've got full visibility on that. Maybe the Department of Public Service has more, but I'm not aware of this being a pressing issue for consumers at the moment. Thank you, Josh. And thank you, Maria, for giving us an update on this. This is something I'll probably check back with you both on in the next month, just as some of these cases evolve and we get closer to April 15th. I appreciate you being here in person and taking the time with us today. Thank you. Good to see you all.


Hello and welcome to the lecture 4 of module 2 on this course on accelerator physics. So today we learn about the behavior of electromagnetic waves in waveguides and cavities. So before that just let us quickly revise what we have learned so far. If you want to accelerate charge particles to high energies using time varying fields or RF accelerators. So Alvarez had proposed that to use the electric fields associated with the electromagnetic waves in a high Q cavity. So in order to understand the behavior of electromagnetic waves we learnt about the electromagnetic waves their propagation in free space and in between parallel conducting planes. So we have seen that so far. So we saw that the electromagnetic waves in free space they are TEM waves that means the electric field and magnetic field are perpendicular to each other and they are perpendicular to the direction of propagation. So they are propagating with a propagation constant k and velocity c. The electromagnetic waves in free space cannot be used for acceleration because here the electric fields are always perpendicular to the direction of the velocity of the beam. So in this case we have E dot V is equal to 0. So there is no acceleration using electromagnetic waves in free space. When electromagnetic waves propagate in regions bounded by conducting boundaries they form standing waves known as modes in the direction in which the boundaries are applied. So and the amplitude has a sinusoidal variation in the direction in which the boundaries are applied in order to satisfy this boundary condition. The wavelength of the standing wave depends upon the dimensions of the system. So we call this as the cutoff wavelength and it is equal to 2 pi by kc. In the direction in which there are no conducting boundaries the electromagnetic wave continues to travel as a propagating wave and now with a new propagation constant kg. We also learnt about the waveguide. So the waveguide is a hollow pipe of infinite extent so it can have an arbitrary cross section. So it has boundaries in two directions. So let us say for example it is bounded in x and y direction and it is free to the electromagnetic wave is free to propagate in the z direction. So no boundary in the z direction in the x and y direction there are boundaries. So we saw that it is sufficient to determine EZ and BZ as solutions of the two dimensional wave equation and the other transverse components can be calculated from the above equations. So that means Ex, Py, Vx and Py are all functions of EZ and BZ only. So if you calculate EZ and BZ it is sufficient you can then find out all the other components. Also in a waveguide TEM waves cannot propagate the electromagnetic wave will propagate inside the waveguide either as a TM wave or a TE wave. So this is because in a TEM wave by definition the both the electric field and the magnetic field the z component is 0. Now if both these go to 0 then we know that Ex, Py, Bx and Py will also go to 0 because they depend upon EZ and BZ only. So all fields are 0 hence no fields and no modes. So TEM waves cannot propagate in a waveguide. Only TM and TE modes will propagate in the waveguide. So in a TM mode the magnetic field is transverse to the direction of propagation. So here we have BZ is 0. So magnetic field will be only in the x direction or y direction it cannot be along the direction of propagation. So we have BZ is equal to 0 and in TE mode the electric field is transverse to the direction of propagation. So here we will have EZ is equal to 0. So Ex and Py component will exist. Also one of the two either EZ or BZ definitely should exist otherwise all fields will go to 0. So today let us study about a rectangular waveguide. A rectangular waveguide has a rectangular cross section. So you can see here it has a rectangular cross section in x and y. So we now have conducting boundaries at x is equal to 0 and x is equal to A. Also at y is equal to 0 and y is equal to B. There is no boundary in the z direction. So the wave is free to propagate in the z direction. So we will see how the electromagnetic wave propagates inside this rectangular waveguide. So we know that now since there is a boundary in the x direction and the y direction the amplitude of the electric field will now have dependence on x and y. The wave unlike in free space where the amplitude was constant will now have dependence on both x and y and it will now propagate in the z direction with the propagation constant Kg. The propagation constant was K in free space. Similarly the magnetic field also the amplitude will have x and y dependence and it will propagate in the z direction with a propagation constant Kg. Now let us consider for the Te mode, for the Te mode Ez is equal to 0 so Bz will exist. So we need to solve the wave equation for Bz. So the wave equation is written here del 2 by del x square plus del 2 by del y square plus Kc square times Bz is equal to 0. Now the boundary conditions for magnetic field are that the normal component of magnetic field should be 0 at the boundary. So that means wherever you have a conducting boundary the normal component of magnetic field should be equal to 0. So this is the boundary condition. So del Vz by del n is equal to 0 at the boundary. So the boundaries are at x is equal to 0 and x is equal to a. So the boundary condition says that del Vz by del x is 0 at x is equal to 0 and x is equal to a. Similarly del Vz by del y is equal to 0 at y is equal to 0 and y is equal to 0. Now we can solve this equation by the method of separation of variables. So we can write Bz which is a function of x and y as x capital X which is a function of x only and capital Y which is a function of y only. So x, y. Okay, so now substituting Bz is equal to x, y in this wave equation we get this expression. So now this double derivative is with respect to x only. So we can, so y will come outside and this will be derivative with respect to x. Similarly here this double derivative is with respect to y only. So x can be taken out and here it is kc square multiplied by x square. Now dividing throughout by x, y we will get 1 by x. So y will get cancelled here, we will get 1 by x here and similarly 1 by y here and then here both x and y get cancelled. So now if you see this equation it can be written in this form where we have taken just the x component and the kc square together on the left hand side and the y part is taken on the right hand side. Now notice that the left hand side depends only on x and the right hand side depends only on y. So both these equations are satisfied when they are independently equal to a constant. So let us say that they are, both of these equations are separately equal to a constant which is p square. So we can write this equation on the left hand side as del 2x by del x square plus kc square minus p square times x is equal to 0 and let us call this kc square minus p square is equal to q square. Now here both p and q are integers and the equation for y can be written as minus 1 by y del 2y by del y square is equal to p square. So let us solve the first equation. This is the equation of a simple harmonic oscillator and it has solutions in the form of sin and cos. So we can write x as a cos qx plus b sin qx. Now the boundary condition is that del bz by del x is equal to 0 at x is equal to 0 and x is equal to a because the normal component of the magnetic field is low at the boundaries. So bz is a function of x and y. So we can write del x by del x is equal to 0 at both x is equal to 0 and x is equal to a. So let us calculate from this expression the derivative of capital X with respect to x.  Now applying the boundary condition at x is equal to 0. So at x is equal to 0 we can put 0 here and here del x by del x is equal to 0. So we get 0 is equal to b into q or in other words b is equal to 0. So we are applying the second boundary condition that means at x is equal to a del x by del x is equal to 0. So we get 0 is equal to bq sin qa. So this expression is satisfied if qa is equal to m pi where m is m integer or in other words q is equal to m pi by a. So now we have b is equal to 0 and q is equal to m pi by a. So substituting in the value of x we get x is equal to capital A cos qx. So qx can be written as m pi a into x. Similarly we can solve for y. So this again is the equation of a simple harmonic oscillator. So the solution can again be written as c cos p y plus d sin p y. Now again equating the normal component of magnetic field as equal to 0 at the boundaries we get del vz by del y is equal to 0 at y is equal to 0 and y is equal to p. And since vz is a function of x and y we can write del y by del y is equal to which is equal to minus cp sin p y plus dp cos p y this is equal to 0 at the boundaries y is equal to 0 and y is equal to p. So simplifying this here we now get p is equal to n pi by d where now n is another integer and we get d is equal to 0. So substituting here the values of d and p we get y is equal to c cos n pi y by b. And we can substitute now the values of capital X and capital Y in vz.  So we see that it has a cosine variation in x and a cosine variation in y. These are the directions in which the boundaries have been applied and it is a propagating wave in the z direction. So this is the solution for T n wave. Now here we have kc square is equal to q square plus p square. So this is how we have defined q, q is equal to kc square minus p square. So we have kc square is equal to q square plus p square and we know that q is equal to m pi by a and p is equal to n pi by b. So we can write kc square as equal to m pi by a the whole square plus n pi by b the whole square and from this we can find out the value of the cutoff frequency. So the cutoff frequency for mn mode is given by pi under root m square by a square plus m square by b square. So this is the cutoff frequency for the mn mode and we see that it depends only on the values of the dimensions of the system. It depends only upon the length of the system in the x direction and the length of the system in the y direction. So this is analogous to the case of the stretched string, the modes in a stretched string where the frequencies of the modes depend only on the dimensions of the system. So here m is an integer and it is a number of half period variations in x. Similarly n is a, it is an integer and it is a number of half period variations in y. So n and n can take values from 0, 1, 2, 3 so on. Now similarly we can solve for tm mode, for tm mode bz is equal to 0 and similarly and applying the boundary conditions we get ez is equal to e sin m pi x by a sin n pi y by b e to the power of ik z minus omega t. So now here we see that the variation in the variation in x and y has a sinusoidal form. So here we have solved by similar method and then applying the boundary condition that the tangential component of electric field is 0 at the boundary, is 0 at the boundary. So again if you calculate the cutoff frequency for the mn mode we see that the formula is the same as it was for the te mode. So the cutoff frequency is the same and here again m and n are integers and they are the number of half period variations in x and y respectively. So summarizing the results we see that for the te mode ez is equal to 0, bz has to exist, bz has a form where the amplitude is a function of x and y and x and y are the directions in which the boundaries are applied and it is a propagating wave in the z direction. So if we solve this by putting the value of bz in the wave equation and applying the boundary conditions we see that bz has a form where it has cosine dependence on x and y. Similarly for tm mode bz is equal to 0 and ez has a form like this where the amplitude has a sinusoidal variation in x and y and it is again a propagating wave in the z direction in which there is no boundaries. So there is sinusoidal variation in both x and y. The cutoff frequency formula for the mn mode for both tm and te mode is the same and it depends upon the dimensions of the system. Now if a is greater than b that means the dimension in x is greater than the dimension in b then te10 mode is the lowest mode or the fundamental mode for a rectangular wave. So it has the lowest frequency. The fundamental mode for the tm mode is the tm11 mode. So here for the tm mode m and n will take values from 1, 2, 3 so on they cannot take values 0 because if either m or n is equal to 0 then the electric field variation is sinusoidal. So if either m or n is 0 then ez will go to 0 and bz is already 0. So if both ez and bz are 0 all other field components will go to 0 and we will have no field. So the fundamental tm mode is the tm11 mode. So tm01 and tm10 mode do not exist since if either m or n is 0 ez is equal to 0. So now let us see the field patterns for the te10 mode in a rectangular waveguide. As we have already seen the te10 mode is the fundamental mode in the rectangular waveguide. So here we have ez is equal to 0. So since it is the te mode ez is equal to 0 so the electric field is along x and y direction only. So it is the transverse electric mode so the electric field will be in the transverse direction only and now since ez is equal to 0 bz has to exist because we see that if both ez and bz go to 0 then there are no fields. So bz definitely has to be there and electric field is along x and y direction only. So now we have this is the te10 mode so m is equal to 1 and m is equal to 0. So m is equal to 1 means there is one half period variation in x of any field. So if you see any field component and see the variation in the x direction there is one half period variation. If you see the variation in the z direction since n is equal to 0 there is no variation in the field. So this is the rectangular waveguide here so this is the x direction, this is the y direction and this is the z direction. So let us see the variation of the fields in the various direction. So we have now one half period variation in x of any of the fields. So let us draw the variation in x from 0 to a we can take any field component so here it is convenient to take so we have here the e y component so we see that this electric field is in the y component so it is convenient to take this the e y component. So let us take e y and see the variation in x direction from 0 to a. So we see that at this boundary here this is the tangential component of the electric field similarly at x is equal to a this is the tangential component of electric field and by boundary conditions the tangential component of electric field has to be 0. So the electric field has to be 0 at x is equal to 0 and at x is equal to a and there is one half period variation in x of any of the field. So there has to be one half period variation so the field will look like this so we see that the e y field is 0 at x is equal to 0 and x is equal to a and it is maximum at the centre this is at a particular instant of time the fields are varying or oscillating with time. Now we can see similarly the variation of e y with y from 0 to b. So at a fixed value of x and z we can see the variation of e y with y so from 0 to b. So let us say we take at this location of x and z so we see that e y field with y from 0 to b it is constant there is no variation so there is no variation in y of any of the fields. We can also see the magnetic field component the magnetic field lines as we can see here they form closed loop lines around the electric field lines. So here we can draw here with x the b x component ok. So we see here at x is equal to 0 at this boundary the magnetic field component the b x component is the normal component so again by boundary condition it has to go to 0. Similarly at x is equal to a it is the normal component of the magnetic field so it has to go to 0. So if we plot the variation of b x with x we will get a variation like this from 0 to a because in order to satisfy the boundary condition the b x component has to go to 0 at x is equal to 0 and x is equal to a. So the field pattern or the modes are formed such that the waves now satisfy the boundary conditions inside the waveguide. So this is how the field patterns look like. So this picture shows another view of the TE10 mode so this is the waveguide here so this is again the x direction this is the y direction and this is the z direction. So in the z direction since there are no boundaries the wave is free to propagate the red lines show the electric field and the blue lines show the magnetic field. So if you see the front view here so we can see that again the there is one half period variation in the electric field and the magnetic field lines they form closed loop lines around the electric field lines. So we can see the side view in the central plane here so this picture shows this so this is the electric field lines these are all at a particular instant of time. So this is the electric field lines and these are the magnetic field lines. So these magnetic field lines are shown by the dots here. The top view is shown here so in the top view you can see that the magnetic field lines are forming closed loop lines around the electric field lines. So here this distance corresponds to lambda g. So here we can see the electric field lines for the TE10 mode in a rectangular waveguide so this is the so we see that it is a propagating wave in the z direction and in the x and y direction where the boundaries have been applied it is a standing wave. So you can see that the field here is always a 0 or a minimum and here it is always a maximum and varying with time there is variation with time. So we have already calculated this expression before so here we have 1 by lambda 0 square is equal to 1 by lambda c square plus 1 by lambda g square. So where lambda 0 is the free space wavelength, lambda c is the cutoff wavelength and lambda g is the guided wavelength. So you can write it in terms of frequency and the wave numbers like this. Now for a given waveguide the frequency of the TE10 mode is fixed or the wavelength of the TE10 mode is fixed it depends only on the dimension. So lambda c10 is equal to pi c by a calculated by this formula so this is fixed. So for a given waveguide lambda c is fixed. Now as lambda 0, so lambda 0 is the free space wavelength. So as lambda 0 is increased lambda g increases so as this is fixed as you increase lambda 0 lambda g will also increase and this will increase the velocity of propagation of this wave inside the waveguide until lambda 0 is equal to lambda c. So when lambda 0 becomes equal to lambda c then lambda g and vg both become imaginary and the wave gets attenuated. So for lambda 0 greater than lambda c the wave is not propagated in the waveguide so it is now attenuated. So the frequency corresponding to the lambda c so omega c that is known as the cutoff frequency of the waveguide. So let us see that some other TE modes in a rectangular waveguide. So we have already seen the TE10 mode so where we have one half period variation in the field in the x direction. Similarly we can have a TE20 mode so here we have two half period variations in the field in the x direction. So the fields will always satisfy the boundary condition here so you see that the field will so the field will be maximum here in this direction and maximum here in the opposite direction and at the boundary here since it is a tangential component it will go to 0 so the field here is 0 and again as before the magnetic field lines will form closed loop lines around the electric field lines. The direction of these two loops will now be opposite to each other because the field is in the opposite direction here the electric field is in this direction and here the electric field is in this direction at a particular instant of time. Similarly for the TE30 mode so there are three half period variations of the field in the x direction. So here the field is in the forward direction here it is in the opposite direction and here again in the this direction and then the magnetic field lines will form closed loop lines around the electric field lines like this. Now we can also have the TM11 mode so for the TM mode this is the fundamental mode in the rectangular wave kite because we have seen that a TM01 or a TM10 mode cannot exist in the field kite. So since it is a TM mode BZ is equal to 0 and we will have magnetic field along x and y direction only. So it is a transverse magnetic field so magnetic field will be in the transverse direction only and EZ should definitely exist. And N and N are equal to 1 here so there is one half period variation in x of any of the field and one half period variation in y of any of the field. So this figure shows the field pattern in the front view this shows the top view and this shows the side view in the central plane. So these dotted lines are the magnetic field lines so we can draw for example let us say Bx with x from 0 to A so this is Bx this is the x component of the magnetic field again you see that the lines here this is the normal component at this boundary the magnetic field line this will be the normal component. So this has to go to 0 here it has to go to 0 at this boundary so that is why in order to satisfy the boundary conditions the magnetic field lines they take a turn and they form a closed loop line like this such that at none of the boundaries they form the normal component of the magnetic field. So if you see the variation of Bx with x from 0 to A it will be like this so it is 0 here and it is 0 here and in between it is maximum. Similarly you can also plot the variation in y from 0 to B of let us say dy and you will have one half period variation so m is equal to 1 and n is equal to 1 here. So for a given waveguide now we can have various modes so we can have the Te mn mode and the Te mn modes and the frequencies of these modes are fixed for fixed dimensions of the waveguide. So let us say we have a waveguide and we can calculate the frequencies of the various modes. So let us say FC1 is the frequency of the Te10 mode, FC2 is the frequency of the Te01 mode, FC3 is the frequency of Te11 and Te11 mode so these are degenerate modes and so on. So let us say F0 is the free space frequency so this is the frequency of a wave that you are trying to propagate through this waveguide. Now you know that when F0 is less than FC1 so if F0 is less than FC1 there will be no propagation the wave will not be able to propagate through the waveguide it will get attenuated. Now if F0 lies between FC1 and FC2 if it lies in this region so it is above the cutoff frequency for the Te10 mode. So it will now propagate in the Te10 mode. Similarly now if let us say F0 lies in this region between FC2 and FC3 now the wave inside the waveguide will propagate with a combination of Te10 mode and Te01 mode because it is above the both these cutoff frequencies so both these modes are possible so it will now propagate inside the waveguide in a combination of the Te10 and the Te01 modes.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaskiescasebreaks.com coming at you with a four box break of 2019 last year's tops museum collection baseball Pick your team at number one from a fresh case right here Thanks everyone for getting into it. Most of the teams were were number blocked But thanks to the handful of people who did pick up their team straight up Matt McLaughlin and ended up with double-ass Bob Mojo with the twins and the Rays And here's the seven team high-end seven team number block And I did the randomizer itself is in the isn't a separate video if you want to check that out And then we've got an 18 team right here. That's a lot of teams So it could be a lot of random number block action here in this break ladies and gentlemen will find out There's the fresh case right here. So let's see which which four boxes we're gonna do All right, so let's take these four right here the two off the top and we'll go one two three four five six on the dice roll You some Dodger blue die one two three four five six Good luck, and it's gonna be five One two three four five six We'll save these for next time. Here we go. Good luck. We've got Coworkan Jr. On the front 2019 tops museum collection Here we go Rex is asking if there's technology that could allow customers to get no good Yes, there is I feel like someone Had I feel like who was it someone had come up with a Co that they had written That would give them a notification every time Something was was put was posted. I don't know if they were if they Ended up sharing that or not, but I don't think they did technically I don't think the He's all base cards You should be able to look at The code on the website it is available. I mean you'd have to program it yourself This is not something that it's not a service. We provide But someone just yeah Well, good news Rex. There's still two other breaks left two other four box breaks So you can you can get into it All right, so that's a reproduction Right there. So these are the non numbered cards that'll have to be randomized Especially if they're part of that group we'll do those randomizers at the end 71 out of 150 Mike Piazza Metz edition Going to the high-end team number block One so that'll go to John. All right and the hit is Gonna be Jim Rice archival autograph 271 out of 299 nice that'll be for the Red Sox Red Sox Red Sox number one Boston one That's part of the 18 teamer That's gonna be for Josh. There you go Josh Red Sox ones red. Yeah, they are on the list There's Cindergarde bronze This should be an autograph. I think no or a dual relic. I see we got Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera dual relic 14 out of 50 Angels are a part of the 18 team number block and the Tigers are also part of the 18 team number block So this will go to number four And that'll be for Chris Christian Sanchez with that one There's a Tatis Junior rookie card and a Tatis Junior rookie card bronze Padres, that's part of the high-end 17 Number block group. So these are not numbered. So they'll be randomized to one person in the break And we got a quad relic primary pieces nine out of 75 all pirates That's Chris Archer, Josh Bells, Starling Marte and James and Tyon Pirates are part of the 18 teamer And that goes to Matt McLaughlin with Pirates 9 And two-color dual relic and autograph Carlos Santana 48 out of 299 That's the tribe that was picked up by Dan Dan bought the tribe straight up gets a hit Yeah, angels are part of the seven teamer. Oh that dual relic. Oh, is that gonna be a randomizer then? Yeah, that's Pujols Pujols seven or Pujols four For Matt and then Chris with Tigers for That was part of the same number block randomizer I was just looking at the R&B part Yeah Yeah, I know I do have to randomize that I get this Miguel on do hard 73 out of 150 Yankees three and then behind Bregman is gonna be wow Ted Williams Three out of ten. Was he number three three out of ten triple relic Three pieces of his lumber Maybe he was number nine That's awesome though Red Sox are part of the 18 teamer 18 team number three Is gonna be Peter Aang. There you go Pete. It's pretty nice Yeah, I've not been sharp all day Rex Didn't have it should have had a V8 We got Blake Snell 39 out of 50 two-color dual relic and autograph for the rays picked up straight up by Matt McLaughlin And we've got a three out of five Byron Buxton nice big relic right there twins Twins were picked up straight up by Matt McLaughlin. That's part. That's the other double part of his double last-pot mojo team All aboard the big hit express There's Eloy Jimenez rookie card and we've got Kyle Tucker archival autograph 79 out of 299 Astros nine It's Astros nine Matt McLaughlin He's hitting everywhere With the teams he got straight up in the number block. All right two boxes to go All right behind George Springer is eight out of 25 Brandon Belt Meaningful material for the Giants that's gonna go to the 18 teamer on hello, Aliva With Giants eight my rivals Corey seager 11 out of 50 for the Dodgers Dodgers 11 Dodgers one Josh getting the World Series champ World Series MVP And then we've got Anthony Rizzo 14 out of 25 You're gonna have a new guy a new guy in the front office So that goes to Cubs for It'll be for Christian with Cubs for Behind Altuve is gonna be a dual relic an autograph Jose Martinez 007 Out of 299 that goes to Cardinal seven and that'll be for Oliver Cardinal seven. All right, then we've got Miguel on do hard to 75 55 out of 75 nice quad relic there Yankees five Barry Roberts the final box next group here We've got 47 out of 99 Hideki Matsui Yankees seven Robert Behind Roberto Alomar is Sweet Lou Brock on card autograph 30 out of 50 Cardinals Cardinals zero is gonna be Matt Medlin Nice archival autograph. I mean he only just passed away, right? Yeah, it's September 6th 2020 is when he passed away very recently. This is 2019 On card as well. He touched. He had had that card in his hands There's Vlad Guerrero junior rookie Ernie Banks and Frank Thomas and behind Glaber Day is Quad relic Kevin Crimea It's a 75 That'll be for Matt McLaughlin and the raise he got the raise straight up Thanks, Jay. Yeah, I do have a museum collection system I think the two base cards on the bottom. So I slide those out and Slide that one there Then I can show you the cards in the middle this blank card or non numbered card Jackie Robinson is gonna reveal wait Where's the hit? To 50 or was that the Lou Brock? Oh? There it is right there. That looks weird 37 out of 50. I kind of blend it into the card Almost almost the design. That's the hit that goes to the dime backs. I'm losing my mind 37 out of 50 Robert With the dime of acts seven There's Lindor 10 out of 150 Indians Dan Tursky picked up the tribe straight up and then back here is the quad relic Joey Vado 93 out of 99 Reds that goes to Barry Roberts who picked up the reds straight up All right now. We've got a few randomizers to do ladies and gentlemen We got to do the 18 team Non-numbered card randomizer then we got to do the seven team a non numbered card randomizer And then we got to do that dual relic so there's a little bit of a little bit of housekeeping to take care of Right here. So for all three lists, we're gonna roll the dice And for all three lists, we're gonna randomize it six and a three nine times. So we're gonna do the 18 team or first So once again nine times one two three four five six seven eight and Ninth and final time after nine times. It's it's on hello Liva So you will get all of the non-numbered cards Mostly base cards out of this. All right now this high-end seven teamer Ryan case and down to Robert Z Once again six and a three nine at times One two three four five six seven eight and Ninth and final time after nine. We got Raymond de Jesus after nine. You'll get all the non-numbered cards Which will include a couple to teach juniors rookie cards as well. Alright, so that's after nine now We got to make one person happy and one person sad. That's Albert Pujols angels and then it's Miguel Cabrera Tigers Six and a three nine times team on top gets it one two three four five six seven eight And ninth and final time after nine times team on top is Detroit Detroit's part of the 18 team number block and that goes to Christian and The number four. There you go. Thanks for watching everyone. I'm Joe for jazby's case breaks calm That was museum collection four box pick your team number one We got two and three in the shop right now jazby's case breaks calm. We got time. Let's break it tonight We'll see you for the next one. Bye. Bye


Good morning to CMC Espresso. Financial newspapers these days are full of almost apocalyptic forecasts about world financial markets. There is the 50 and 100 week moving average, which is showing a death cross on the S&P 500 index. The last time it did, the world's largest stock index dropped by 51%. Then there is the Salt Hedge Fund Conference in Las Vegas these days. Kyle Beis, one hedge funds manager voicing concerns about China and he's heavily short on China, is of the opinion that we are actually in a late stage of a cycle which is comparable, so today is comparable to March or April of the year 2007. Activist investor Carl Eichen sold all his Apple shares and expect a stock market correction, a major one. Former George Soros' colleague Stan Druckenmiller thinks the bull market in stocks is exhausted and the only thing worth buying right now would be gold. Jeff Gundlach thinks negative interest rates are leading economies into deflation. As he sees it, they are a form of a tax on wealth. If you invest 100 pounds and get back 98, then that is money shrinking and that's deflation as Gundlach sees it. Paul Singer, another hedge fund manager from a billion dollar hedge fund company called Elliott Management thinks that gold is only in the very early stages of a big bull market. Run as investors are increasingly starting to process the fact that the world's central bankers are completely focused on debasing their currencies. He said that if investors confidence in central bankers judgment continues to weaken, the effect on gold could be very powerful. JP Morgan meanwhile is recommending its clients to position for a new and very long bull market for gold. After seeing three back-to-back years of losses, $1,400 per ounce in the price of gold is very much in the cards this year, JP thinks. As a non-yielding asset gold, right now does have a minimal storage cost. So when you compare it to negative yielding assets, it actually has a positive carry. Meanwhile, within the Fed up reserve something is starting to cook which I have been expecting a while ago. They are rising to the possibility that the US elections with Trump and Sanders and Clinton might have an effect on their monetary policy. So there is the Fed president of Dallas Kaplan saying that consumers could because of political rhetoric slow their spending or just pausing it a little bit or capex is slowing down because of that and that I've got to take into account Kaplan said. His colleague Lockhart from Atlanta said the election could be a factor in this year's economy. So there we have it. This might be excuse the Fed reserve might be using in the second half of the year to completely step back for any further rate hike plans.