looks 100times more expensive then the system in use today. Allot of machined parts, more electrical, and servicing this i assume would be more time consuming. I really like the concept, but do we need it ?,(reply>), Rich Dobbs I wouldn't worry about decentralising the internet, I think this guy called Richard Hendricks is working on it,(reply>), This is the company that brought you Bagger 288.  They only need to sell 5 of them at $500 million each. ;-),(reply>), For really tall buildings, this system allows you to board a single cabin and go to your destination.  With cable systems, above a certain height, you need to go up one bank, get off, board a cabin in another bank, etc.  Now, my feeling is that such tall buildings present too much societal risk, and should be effectively prevented in fairly free market societies by reinsurance requirements, emergency services and military security charges.  But in any case, you are going to have countries like Dubai that are going to build vanity projects whether they are economic or not. Heck, they rebuilt the World Trade Center in this era were the internet should allow greater decentralization.,(reply>), the higher your building is the more do the pros of this systhem outweigh the cons, from a certain hight onwards it will be more cost eficient than the standard model.,(reply>), Well actually No.<br><br>This is not intended for normal small buildings but for big skyscrapers. And there you have a different problem as was said in the video (and several more).<br>elevators can only be oh so tall after which the weight of the cables is a real engineering challenge - this system doesn't have this problem at all.<br>You normally can only have 1 elevator per shaft and so for bigger buildings you need 3,4 or even 10 elevators - that costs a lot of space and thus money.<br>And long elevator-tunnels are a problem for safety - when something burns it acts like a chimney and can make any fire far worse. again - this can be prevented with this elevator.