The 911 fixation is a real concern for mass replacement of a existing technology that had 911, no concern for just a few people wondering around a big city, they'll likely run into a cell phone user often. Obviously once VOIP looked to be replacing a significant amount of phones, 911 needed addressed to move forward there. Since most in-active cell phones can dial 911, it is a free solution to keep the old cell charged in the car, small compromise for a person willing to lug around a laptop 24/7.
it will likely be close to $1000. I am personally heading down the same path you direct (but cheaper), bought a $200 electric plane, with the FMA co-Pilot to learn to fly the RC plane (after a couple 15 minute sessions playing the RC sim at the local hobby shop.) These sensors then work with the arduPilot once you are a competent pilot. Total cost for the training aids, plane, gps+board... sub $1000
cant yet comment how well it works, just got the plane in the air (2 feet), now getting the FMA co-pilot installed (have proof I need it now, accident free though) have the rest in hand.
IMO this breakdown is not a government issue, it is a getting to the truth breakdown. IE false advertising and bad science is leading people to believe in Ethanol, a free market is just as weak to that as a government. People pay extra, do extra to try and address those indirect society costs that lead to increased pollution, recycling, etc. Free market does require enforcement, and that needs to come from government. IE we do need truth in advertising enforcement, and we need some FDA involvement to make sure the failures don't kill too many people first. Also to make sure were not getting addictive chemicals added in. But mostly we have to make sure the indirect society costs are also factored in (pollution, road wear, noise, etc.)
Actually one of the main reasons they speculate, is if everyone in NYC had hummers, the demand for alternatives like public transport would skyrocket. It is obvious if you have a small easier to park car that costs less to use, you will drive lots more (more than the 4x as often which may burn net more fuel.) (leaving the prius/ hummer argument) Since these more efficient cars will cost more than the less efficient, people will discount the sunk cost, and the longer term costs when they consider should I drive to a remote amusement park this weekend, or do they stay local and have less fun. Obviously electric helps this. By making a distance drive painful in other ways than fuel cost.
I will say in the prius/hummer argument. They really shouldn't be compared for the same task. For instance I live down a very rough dirt road that is often muddy, and occasionally requires driving through running water, also I have needs to haul a trailer on occasion. The prius would be unuseable in less than 50k miles, and leave me stranded often. The hummer is overkill, but would likely be more economical (assuming I had to drive either every day on my road.) Similar, using a hummer for purely urban driving is just vanity. both the prius, and the hummer are specialized purpose built vehicles, that really shouldn't be compared. Much like a loaded bus/van get much better cost per person. IE my 22 MPG quad cab pickup would kicks a prius only interstate trip for any combination of 5+ people (with cabover camper I drop to 18MPG, but can easily/comfortably haul 10 people plus stuff.)
then you should be happy that the 3.5" floppy is (almost) gone. When I was in school that was what the non computer person calls a "hard disk" since the 5 1/4" was the "floppy disk" And with the 3.5" is inside of a hard cover, therefore that must be the hard disk thing they heard about. So you never knew what someone meant when they asked you if the noise their hard disk was making was a concern, could be almost any part or even a accessory to the PC.
Yes, but if the ploy were successful and thousands participate they will be unable to prosecute more than a few. So chances of you getting a response would be small. Sound familiar? TPB serves up torrents knowing thousands will play and at most a dozen people will get charged. Same tactic, same people. Difference is this would cost you money for nothing, torrents get you something with just a slim chance of cost.
from what I have been told, it is most important that the masters degree is specialized in something marketable, and something you know you want to work at. IE your specialized degree is not as useful outside its specialty, and could make a company hesitant to hire someone expecting higher pay over a person with the experience, and ready to go.
people are willing to pay that extra $50-$100 if it means getting
mis-lead into having to add $100's more just to touch-up photos and create documents and presentations. granted ooffice, and gimp, etc run on windows, more spend several hundred on windows, because you can't just launch synaptic/yum/whatever and click one button, like with the linux netbook. I guess it is somewhat greed caused, since most of the pre-loaded linux's seam to hide this on netbooks, so they can sell packages to you.
I don't think you understood the parent post. These texts would most certainly would not be free (as in without cost.) using any of the terms you describe would likely be confused as "without cost" to the lay person (and thus wrong.) Open source license is more precise, and not as open to mis-interpretation. Sounds like you know what it means, and thus your only objection is "but I thought that should only applied to a computer program." It doesn't so get over it.
I don't really care about the short term psychology aspect. The question I corrected the answer of was simply "is their a incentive to a author to protest a switch from printed books?" Since the highest "text book" royalty is 15%, text books are no different than any other book that I can find (or even suggested by anyone.) And thus with the Kindle rate for authors at 35%, I see no fact based incentive for authors (text book or otherwise) to resist the e-book, if that's what the customer desires (except the status quo, or they can't find a proof reader they like on there own.) Of course books still have a draw such as a status symbol in the library, or as backup notepad in a pinch... But that's not a author issue, that's a consumer question.
A book that is already published, then it is the publisher pushing it to amazon. If you haven't yet signed your work away to a publisher then in a few minutes and a amazon account, your work now sells for $4.99, and you get $1.75 for every book. so the royalties to the author more than double, and the cost compared to a book is now 1/2 or less. 3.1. WHO CAN USE THE DTP? As of this writing, anyone with an Amazon account can use the DTP to create and sell Kindle(TM) editions of anything from short fiction to doorstop-sized tomes" 3.7. WHAT IS MY AUTHOR ROYALTY ON MY DTP BOOK? As of this writing, your author royalty is 35% of the list price you set when you enter the details for your DTP book. For example, if you price your book at 4.99, your royalty on each copy sold is $1.75. Even if Amazon discounts your book and sells it for say, 20% off the list price, you still get $1.75 for each copy sold
I doubt very many people from either side can say with straight face that Obama is a fool. what I really wonder is where is he headed with this? I bet what he wants to be able to say is "we lowered the tax rate on businesses and increased tax revenue", the holy grail of conservatives. If that succeeds then the GDP of the US makes a big jump (on paper only), and since these havens likely really protect the BIG businesses who can afford to play the game. Being successful would help small businesses compete and grow. But also remove the ability of the big companies to have big stock pile of cash out of the economy. (the only way companies like Microsoft can afford to keep big piles of cash, is because they will have to pay taxes on bringing it to bear in the US, unless they are covering a business loss.) Remove the incentive for the shell company, give a one time forgiveness break, and you bring a huge chunk of cash to this economy. I have my doubts if he can get congress/senate in line long enough to pull it off.
that was my first thought to, if I were given that amount of money to build a data center, a second location with some testing facilities on site for me to work at, close access to silicon supplies, and a salt water bath for corrosion testing (thinking Bahamas type location, some research money/ time needed.) of course a steam chamber, and a cooling pool would all be needed, for ummm maintaining a constant atmosphere. I might even look over some ideas from bill gates $125 million dollar reference design
from the wiki I linked a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficientBasically, if as I believe, wired ISP's are a natural monopoly, then no matter how many providers, the overall costs (to the suppliers) would be lower with one less provider. And unless the providers are gouging, then the cost to the customer would be lower with one less supplier. I do agree that the cost would not be so much greater to our society, that adding a artificial means (which is what I think your suggestion was) to maintain a competitive market is probably not so great of a burden that it makes sense. In a true free market, even a natural monopoly would not likely persist as a monopoly for long, IE once they price gouge enough competitors enter and force out the high cost providers often enough that you may never have a true monopoly. The issue seams to be large companies know this, and are involved. Even if they are not the low cost provider, they just take their larger losses until the monopoly comes back, then gouge enough to make up for it. Also with ISP's, it is a service that is not a necessity. Thus a company has incentive (more customers) to not gouge excessively. But also communities have a interest (more people/houses/home values/taxes) in making sure ISP's are not gouging as well.
I agree, except these are certainly related issues. IE the ISP's are trying to use both tools to stop competition with their related businesses. IE some DSL providers are using both tools to stop VOIP/Video chat from taking away their phone revenue, and Cable companies to stop video streaming... So these are both good examples of why regulation may be needed, and why the free market needs some regulations. I think the point of the article is valid, both don't need addressed by the federal government, only net-neutrality. In true monopoly situations, the local governments certainly need to consider both of these issues at the same time (but certainly not as the same issue.) If the Federal government takes care of net-neutrality, then bandwidth fees/caps will need close watching.
This is not a natural monopoly. My house can tolerate several services entering it. It is an artificial monopoly, and could be broken by one of at least two ways:
A natural monopoly describes a firm's cost structure (high fixed cost, extremely low constant marginal cost)care to choose another term? IE significant costs to get cabling, etc to your house. costs significantly to get the content, etc to their business. If those are in place it costs almost nothing to add another user... sounds like a natural monopoly to me. A forced monopoly it is not, IE you can run 30 fiber cables into your house, NP. Combining that with your 300 neighbors between you and a nice spot to put equipment = 300*300 or 90000 fiber cables to manage to try and keep options open for several competitors. If your just adding one more, it gets exponentially harder with each previous cable they bury. IE if you only run 1 cable, then add a trench 3' away, then about the 5th one, you can't stick a shovel in the ground without breaking one. So then they go airborne, and in a few iterations the sky is blocked out. So required Monopoly no, buts duopoly to max of 3-4 competitors, likely yes. Natural monopoly, again, yes.
also it seams cleverly written, to force the citizens to subsidize the counties internet usage. IE all those departments mentioned are likely internet users as well, (and sounds like being paying customers, would be forbidden) so either the county sets up completely separate ISP services at a significant additional cost. Or setup one, and just count the cost of providing internet for all county services as a overhead to their subscribers. I would think it would be enough to force the county to disclose all costs publicly, so that the citizens can decide to end this service if it is more costly than TW.
I do agree with 100% certainty your experiment would prove you correct. Assuming you leave out one critical item, the 100 Ohm termination resistor that the switch adds to each end of the CAT5 cable to minimize reflections. Add the resistor in, and your experiment would then require $100,000+ equipment to find the proverbial meaningless needle in a haystack.
despite the flaimbait mod, this is a interesting point, IMO. IE first amendment doesn't protect business speech, but a business is a group of individuals. So if we pass a law against "business spam", is a business supposed to review the email actions of it's employees to protect it's self? So then all free speech using a company's resources is subject to prosecution/persecution? Most spam is 1) fraudulent in nature, 2) from foreign (to US) control, with no fear of US prosecution. So despite my initial reaction, I am now not sure what new law would do, or why?
I think you missed Hillary's pledge to get help for the root cause of Somalis problems. IE they finally got enough attention years later, by attacking a US ship to get some help. Your solution was the initial attempt, and for years got little attention. (you can spare me the opinions on if anyone would want Clinton/US help, or if it will even be helpful, but it will be attention.)
No one is saying the actions of all the Pirates are justified, only understandable. It was a slippery slope, but a logical one. IE they have no navy to defend their waters legally from the illegal actions of others. So logically the Somali fishermen take the law into their own hands, and start attacking/boarding the vessels doing illegal things in their waters. (so far so good?) Now they have caught the guilty parties, so they try to get restitution (with some success.) Of course those boarded would never admit guilt, and always blame the "pirates." Now some Somalis have found this new and more reliable income (since the actions of a few have destroyed their only other legal living, fishing/farming.) and that's where the bad pirates take over. Now it feels okay to the mariners to be lawless to the Somalis, and the Somalis feel forced to act lawless to the other mariners, and innocent people are now being hurt on both sides (along with the guilty.)
IMHO, it sounds like you have had your headstart, and it sounds like some time to make profits and either re-invest or take some out. FYI the idealized free market approach where all profits head to zero, mentioned above, is not a "volunteers only" model. It is the point where everyone gets a reasonable salary for work invested, ie all have to pay employees, and manage them, and cover capital expenses... So if you have a active role in the company you will still make a decent living, if you do the job equal or better than the competition (regardless the business model of the competition.) If your role is a in-active skim profits from work you did years back, then a idealized free market should either shove you out or force your profit to zero. Sounds like this is the case for TW, they wanted to do no re-investment, and keep the same profits forever, they needed squeezed.
I would make sure that all network devices are showing 100 MB connection, they may have failed pairs that dropped to 10 MB, and never noticed. I agree copper should be fine as long as it is not fatigued by regular movement, and has never been exposed to over-currents (POE much?.) the plastic insulation, and connectors would be what I would worry more about. We have all experienced cables with the center latch broken off. As well as cables that have had the plastic insulation chewed off by rodents. basically I would be prepared to replace repair a small percent of cables anytime you are doing a mass un-plug - re-plug. also I wouldn't be surprised if a small percent of the cables don't have some issue like a single grounded wire that has gone un-noticed.
Slashdot Mirror
The 911 fixation is a real concern for mass replacement of a existing technology that had 911, no concern for just a few people wondering around a big city, they'll likely run into a cell phone user often. Obviously once VOIP looked to be replacing a significant amount of phones, 911 needed addressed to move forward there.
Since most in-active cell phones can dial 911, it is a free solution to keep the old cell charged in the car, small compromise for a person willing to lug around a laptop 24/7.
I prefer my security system to use wireless communication and backed up with lead notification system.
it will likely be close to $1000.
I am personally heading down the same path you direct (but cheaper), bought a $200 electric plane, with the FMA co-Pilot to learn to fly the RC plane (after a couple 15 minute sessions playing the RC sim at the local hobby shop.) These sensors then work with the arduPilot once you are a competent pilot. Total cost for the training aids, plane, gps+board... sub $1000
cant yet comment how well it works, just got the plane in the air (2 feet), now getting the FMA co-pilot installed (have proof I need it now, accident free though) have the rest in hand.
IMO this breakdown is not a government issue, it is a getting to the truth breakdown. IE false advertising and bad science is leading people to believe in Ethanol, a free market is just as weak to that as a government. People pay extra, do extra to try and address those indirect society costs that lead to increased pollution, recycling, etc. Free market does require enforcement, and that needs to come from government. IE we do need truth in advertising enforcement, and we need some FDA involvement to make sure the failures don't kill too many people first. Also to make sure were not getting addictive chemicals added in. But mostly we have to make sure the indirect society costs are also factored in (pollution, road wear, noise, etc.)
Actually one of the main reasons they speculate, is if everyone in NYC had hummers, the demand for alternatives like public transport would skyrocket. It is obvious if you have a small easier to park car that costs less to use, you will drive lots more (more than the 4x as often which may burn net more fuel.) (leaving the prius/ hummer argument) Since these more efficient cars will cost more than the less efficient, people will discount the sunk cost, and the longer term costs when they consider should I drive to a remote amusement park this weekend, or do they stay local and have less fun.
Obviously electric helps this. By making a distance drive painful in other ways than fuel cost.
I will say in the prius/hummer argument. They really shouldn't be compared for the same task. For instance I live down a very rough dirt road that is often muddy, and occasionally requires driving through running water, also I have needs to haul a trailer on occasion. The prius would be unuseable in less than 50k miles, and leave me stranded often. The hummer is overkill, but would likely be more economical (assuming I had to drive either every day on my road.) Similar, using a hummer for purely urban driving is just vanity. both the prius, and the hummer are specialized purpose built vehicles, that really shouldn't be compared. Much like a loaded bus/van get much better cost per person. IE my 22 MPG quad cab pickup would kicks a prius only interstate trip for any combination of 5+ people (with cabover camper I drop to 18MPG, but can easily/comfortably haul 10 people plus stuff.)
then you should be happy that the 3.5" floppy is (almost) gone. When I was in school that was what the non computer person calls a "hard disk" since the 5 1/4" was the "floppy disk" And with the 3.5" is inside of a hard cover, therefore that must be the hard disk thing they heard about.
So you never knew what someone meant when they asked you if the noise their hard disk was making was a concern, could be almost any part or even a accessory to the PC.
Yes, but if the ploy were successful and thousands participate they will be unable to prosecute more than a few. So chances of you getting a response would be small.
Sound familiar? TPB serves up torrents knowing thousands will play and at most a dozen people will get charged. Same tactic, same people. Difference is this would cost you money for nothing, torrents get you something with just a slim chance of cost.
from what I have been told, it is most important that the masters degree is specialized in something marketable, and something you know you want to work at.
IE your specialized degree is not as useful outside its specialty, and could make a company hesitant to hire someone expecting higher pay over a person with the experience, and ready to go.
people are willing to pay that extra $50-$100 if it means getting
mis-lead into having to add $100's more just to touch-up photos and create documents and presentations.
granted ooffice, and gimp, etc run on windows, more spend several hundred on windows, because you can't just launch synaptic/yum/whatever and click one button, like with the linux netbook. I guess it is somewhat greed caused, since most of the pre-loaded linux's seam to hide this on netbooks, so they can sell packages to you.
I don't think you understood the parent post. These texts would most certainly would not be free (as in without cost.) using any of the terms you describe would likely be confused as "without cost" to the lay person (and thus wrong.) Open source license is more precise, and not as open to mis-interpretation. Sounds like you know what it means, and thus your only objection is "but I thought that should only applied to a computer program." It doesn't so get over it.
I don't really care about the short term psychology aspect. The question I corrected the answer of was simply "is their a incentive to a author to protest a switch from printed books?" Since the highest "text book" royalty is 15%, text books are no different than any other book that I can find (or even suggested by anyone.) And thus with the Kindle rate for authors at 35%, I see no fact based incentive for authors (text book or otherwise) to resist the e-book, if that's what the customer desires (except the status quo, or they can't find a proof reader they like on there own.)
Of course books still have a draw such as a status symbol in the library, or as backup notepad in a pinch... But that's not a author issue, that's a consumer question.
A book that is already published, then it is the publisher pushing it to amazon. If you haven't yet signed your work away to a publisher then in a few minutes and a amazon account, your work now sells for $4.99, and you get $1.75 for every book. so the royalties to the author more than double, and the cost compared to a book is now 1/2 or less.
3.1. WHO CAN USE THE DTP?
As of this writing, anyone with an Amazon account can use the DTP to create
and sell Kindle(TM) editions of anything from short fiction to doorstop-sized tomes"
3.7. WHAT IS MY AUTHOR ROYALTY ON MY DTP BOOK?
As of this writing, your author royalty is 35% of the list price you set when you
enter the details for your DTP book. For example, if you price your book at 4.99,
your royalty on each copy sold is $1.75. Even if Amazon discounts your book
and sells it for say, 20% off the list price, you still get $1.75 for each copy sold
The IP of the authors is what costs the most money.
close, but wrong, between $.20 to $1.06 goes to the author, $3-$6 is the printing cost: To calculate the royalty you earn per book sold you multiply five percent, or .05, times $20. The result equals $1. So that's the royalty you earn for every book the publisher sells.
the Publisher eats the majority of the remaining profit. Straight to ebook should remove that overhead and I think reduce the cost by at least 60%.
I doubt very many people from either side can say with straight face that Obama is a fool. what I really wonder is where is he headed with this? I bet what he wants to be able to say is "we lowered the tax rate on businesses and increased tax revenue", the holy grail of conservatives. If that succeeds then the GDP of the US makes a big jump (on paper only), and since these havens likely really protect the BIG businesses who can afford to play the game. Being successful would help small businesses compete and grow. But also remove the ability of the big companies to have big stock pile of cash out of the economy. (the only way companies like Microsoft can afford to keep big piles of cash, is because they will have to pay taxes on bringing it to bear in the US, unless they are covering a business loss.) Remove the incentive for the shell company, give a one time forgiveness break, and you bring a huge chunk of cash to this economy. I have my doubts if he can get congress/senate in line long enough to pull it off.
that was my first thought to, if I were given that amount of money to build a data center, a second location with some testing facilities on site for me to work at, close access to silicon supplies, and a salt water bath for corrosion testing (thinking Bahamas type location, some research money/ time needed.) of course a steam chamber, and a cooling pool would all be needed, for ummm maintaining a constant atmosphere. I might even look over some ideas from bill gates $125 million dollar reference design
from the wiki I linked a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficientBasically, if as I believe, wired ISP's are a natural monopoly, then no matter how many providers, the overall costs (to the suppliers) would be lower with one less provider. And unless the providers are gouging, then the cost to the customer would be lower with one less supplier.
I do agree that the cost would not be so much greater to our society, that adding a artificial means (which is what I think your suggestion was) to maintain a competitive market is probably not so great of a burden that it makes sense.
In a true free market, even a natural monopoly would not likely persist as a monopoly for long, IE once they price gouge enough competitors enter and force out the high cost providers often enough that you may never have a true monopoly. The issue seams to be large companies know this, and are involved. Even if they are not the low cost provider, they just take their larger losses until the monopoly comes back, then gouge enough to make up for it.
Also with ISP's, it is a service that is not a necessity. Thus a company has incentive (more customers) to not gouge excessively. But also communities have a interest (more people/houses/home values/taxes) in making sure ISP's are not gouging as well.
Can we not conflate unrelated issues
I agree, except these are certainly related issues. IE the ISP's are trying to use both tools to stop competition with their related businesses. IE some DSL providers are using both tools to stop VOIP/Video chat from taking away their phone revenue, and Cable companies to stop video streaming... So these are both good examples of why regulation may be needed, and why the free market needs some regulations. I think the point of the article is valid, both don't need addressed by the federal government, only net-neutrality. In true monopoly situations, the local governments certainly need to consider both of these issues at the same time (but certainly not as the same issue.) If the Federal government takes care of net-neutrality, then bandwidth fees/caps will need close watching.
This is not a natural monopoly. My house can tolerate several services entering it. It is an artificial monopoly, and could be broken by one of at least two ways:
A natural monopoly describes a firm's cost structure (high fixed cost, extremely low constant marginal cost)care to choose another term? IE significant costs to get cabling, etc to your house. costs significantly to get the content, etc to their business. If those are in place it costs almost nothing to add another user...
sounds like a natural monopoly to me. A forced monopoly it is not, IE you can run 30 fiber cables into your house, NP. Combining that with your 300 neighbors between you and a nice spot to put equipment = 300*300 or 90000 fiber cables to manage to try and keep options open for several competitors. If your just adding one more, it gets exponentially harder with each previous cable they bury. IE if you only run 1 cable, then add a trench 3' away, then about the 5th one, you can't stick a shovel in the ground without breaking one. So then they go airborne, and in a few iterations the sky is blocked out.
So required Monopoly no, buts duopoly to max of 3-4 competitors, likely yes. Natural monopoly, again, yes.
also it seams cleverly written, to force the citizens to subsidize the counties internet usage. IE all those departments mentioned are likely internet users as well, (and sounds like being paying customers, would be forbidden) so either the county sets up completely separate ISP services at a significant additional cost. Or setup one, and just count the cost of providing internet for all county services as a overhead to their subscribers.
I would think it would be enough to force the county to disclose all costs publicly, so that the citizens can decide to end this service if it is more costly than TW.
I do agree with 100% certainty your experiment would prove you correct. Assuming you leave out one critical item, the 100 Ohm termination resistor that the switch adds to each end of the CAT5 cable to minimize reflections. Add the resistor in, and your experiment would then require $100,000+ equipment to find the proverbial meaningless needle in a haystack.
despite the flaimbait mod, this is a interesting point, IMO. IE first amendment doesn't protect business speech, but a business is a group of individuals. So if we pass a law against "business spam", is a business supposed to review the email actions of it's employees to protect it's self? So then all free speech using a company's resources is subject to prosecution/persecution?
Most spam is 1) fraudulent in nature, 2) from foreign (to US) control, with no fear of US prosecution.
So despite my initial reaction, I am now not sure what new law would do, or why?
I think you missed Hillary's pledge to get help for the root cause of Somalis problems. IE they finally got enough attention years later, by attacking a US ship to get some help. Your solution was the initial attempt, and for years got little attention. (you can spare me the opinions on if anyone would want Clinton/US help, or if it will even be helpful, but it will be attention.)
No one is saying the actions of all the Pirates are justified, only understandable.
It was a slippery slope, but a logical one. IE they have no navy to defend their waters legally from the illegal actions of others. So logically the Somali fishermen take the law into their own hands, and start attacking/boarding the vessels doing illegal things in their waters. (so far so good?) Now they have caught the guilty parties, so they try to get restitution (with some success.) Of course those boarded would never admit guilt, and always blame the "pirates." Now some Somalis have found this new and more reliable income (since the actions of a few have destroyed their only other legal living, fishing/farming.) and that's where the bad pirates take over. Now it feels okay to the mariners to be lawless to the Somalis, and the Somalis feel forced to act lawless to the other mariners, and innocent people are now being hurt on both sides (along with the guilty.)
IMHO, it sounds like you have had your headstart, and it sounds like some time to make profits and either re-invest or take some out.
FYI the idealized free market approach where all profits head to zero, mentioned above, is not a "volunteers only" model. It is the point where everyone gets a reasonable salary for work invested, ie all have to pay employees, and manage them, and cover capital expenses... So if you have a active role in the company you will still make a decent living, if you do the job equal or better than the competition (regardless the business model of the competition.) If your role is a in-active skim profits from work you did years back, then a idealized free market should either shove you out or force your profit to zero.
Sounds like this is the case for TW, they wanted to do no re-investment, and keep the same profits forever, they needed squeezed.
I would make sure that all network devices are showing 100 MB connection, they may have failed pairs that dropped to 10 MB, and never noticed.
I agree copper should be fine as long as it is not fatigued by regular movement, and has never been exposed to over-currents (POE much?.)
the plastic insulation, and connectors would be what I would worry more about. We have all experienced cables with the center latch broken off. As well as cables that have had the plastic insulation chewed off by rodents. basically I would be prepared to replace repair a small percent of cables anytime you are doing a mass un-plug - re-plug. also I wouldn't be surprised if a small percent of the cables don't have some issue like a single grounded wire that has gone un-noticed.