Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
Earth.

The post (How long for transporters to replace airlines?) specified a
cabin 1mX1mX2,5m costs $70 millions to build, $6,18 to make one 5000
km trip.

$70 millions is about the cost of a Boeing 737 or Airbus 320. This
year, airlines could afford to buy and Airbus and Boeing to build
about 400 of each, total about 800.

A pair of Concorde seats is 94 cm pitch (minus seat thickness),
slightly over 100 cm wide and well under 192 cm height.

I see no reason why a few instants of transportation in
100cmX100cmXstand-up height cabin would not be practical for 4 people.

Concordes used to transport 200 seats each way daily LHR-JFK - the
trip took 4 hours and took huge fuel and maintenance cost.

If you sell 200 tickets daily LHR-JFK, you could charge what the
market would bear - which would be considerably more than the Concorde
tickets, since instant trip is far more value than a 4 hour trip! You
could sell tickets at $16 000 each and carry costs of $1.60.

Accepting the assumption that you could make a profit of $ 6 millions
per day at basically no cost whatever - and recoup your initial
investment of $70 millions in a fortnight, pocketing or investing all
the profits thereafter - how would you maximize your profits?

You could sell instant JFK-LHR trips much lower, and empty all the
coach seats on the route. A plane inherently burns much more than
$1.60 fuel on the 8 hour trip JFK-LHR.

Then next? 4 passengers in 4 seconds could be feasible - doors open, 4
people step in, doors close, doors open across the pond. But then it
means 80 000 people per day. Which would fill 200 747 flights per
day.There are not quite so many between JFK and LHR, I think.

Once instant and affordable transit is offered LHR-JFK, people would
travel by air and land to LHR band JFK instead of flying CDG-JFK, IAD-
LHR et cetera. Thus, the longhaul transatlantic planes would promptly
go obsolete - but shorthaul planes would be diverted to connect the
few existing portals to the many smaller airports where no portals
exist.

Where would the next portals go?

Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnorkack@hush.ai> wrote:
> Then next? 4 passengers in 4 seconds could be feasible - doors open, 4
> people step in, doors close, doors open across the pond. But then it
> means 80 000 people per day. Which would fill 200 747 flights per
> day.There are not quite so many between JFK and LHR, I think.

I don't see why not. That capacity is about 3000/hour, which is in the
neighborhood of the capacity of a subway line. From what I've been able
to find it's 2-3 times lower than a subway line, but it's also one or two
orders of magnitude cheaper in capital costs, and somewhat cheaper
per-passenger as well. (Recall that most subways operate at around
$2/passenger and lose money like crazy.)

You've effectively built a subway line between the two cities. Demand will
rise proportionate to the decrease in cost and increase in speed. I see no
reason why an instantaneous and inexpensive link *wouldn't* be able to
fill 3000 passengers/hour at peak times, at least. At that cost you could
easily decide on a total lark to have dinner in London instead of lunch in
New York, and a lot of people will do just that. I expect that demand
could easily exceed the capacity of a single teleporter at peak times, and
you may want to install more than one. Paying off the $70 million each
should be trivial. The biggest problem is going to be convincing the
governments to allow it and the customs services to set up enough capacity
that people don't suffer insane delays after using your service.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Dec 28, 2:47 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
wrote:
> Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
> Earth.

> The post (How long for transporters to replace airlines?) specified a
> cabin 1mX1mX2,5m costs $70 millions to build, $6,18 to make one 5000
> km trip.
[...]
> I see no reason why a few instants of transportation in
> 100cmX100cmXstand-up height cabin would not be practical for 4 people.

Or even more if the customers are Japanese used to commuting
through Shinjuku or Shibuya.

> Where would the next portals go?

If you want to maximize profits? Start with a bunch of portals in
central Tokyo connected to various currently lightly populated
places in Japan (yes, there are plenty of places). Boom! You've
created an insane explosion of real estate within commuting
range of Tokyo. MILLIONS of commuters go through Shinjuku
daily. You'd have enough demand for dozens of portals at
100,000 people per day per portal, even if the portal range were
much shorter.

Next, do the same thing in New York and San Fransisco,
connecting these densely populated cities with suburbs
across the USA. Unfortunately, these customers are used
to more room, and frankly take up more space, on average.
Still, the daily commute pricing will be acceptable to
millions.

In other words, don't go around connecting densely populated
cities with each other. Connect densely populated cities with
excess demand for commuting real estate with currently
lightly populated areas. You want to connect supply and
demand.

Isaac Kuo

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:47:50 -0800 (PST), Crown-Horned Snorkack
<chornedsnorkack@hush.ai> wrote:

>Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
>Earth.
>
>The post (How long for transporters to replace airlines?) specified a
>cabin 1mX1mX2,5m costs $70 millions to build, $6,18 to make one 5000
>km trip.

Sorry for the interruption . . .

It's completely irrelevant, immaterial, and has no bearing on the
questions you're asking, but it irks me all the same -- it was a two
cubic meter chamber that cost $70M; that is, one meter diameter by
about two and a half meters tall, a comfortable size for one person.


>Accepting the assumption that you could make a profit of $ 6 millions
>per day at basically no cost whatever - and recoup your initial
>investment of $70 millions in a fortnight, pocketing or investing all
>the profits thereafter - how would you maximize your profits?

Indirectly.

Your operations would affect many sections of several industries. Some
(like oil) would be hurt, others (like commuter aircraft) would be
helped (at least at first). A little intelligent stock trading could
reap benefits nearly as great as operational profits.

Also, any land within easy walking distance of the booths is going to
go up in value very quickly.

The worst case scenario for that is if you're starting up at an
airport, but even then, one gate area will easily handle the
passengers that eight or ten gates do now. By getting long-term leases
on those extra gates prior to starting operations, you'll be able to
sublet to latte shops, currency exchanges, etc. for a small fortune.
It might only add $10-15M a year to your bottom line, but every little
bit helps.


>Then next? 4 passengers in 4 seconds could be feasible - doors open, 4
>people step in, doors close, doors open across the pond. But then it
>means 80 000 people per day. Which would fill 200 747 flights per
>day.There are not quite so many between JFK and LHR, I think.

At the proper price, demand would increase to fill the supply. The
only question is how many people the infrastructure (not only roads
and rails but also things like customs) can accommodate.


>Where would the next portals go?

LHR to Mall of America? You could collect on both ends -- people pay
for transport and the mall pays a stipend for each customer.

For that matter, how long before people start building amusement
parks, shopping malls, and the like specifically for teleputers? The
fact that they could buy land in very remote areas, instead of paying
high prices to be near large cities, would offset a considerable part
of the cost of putting their booth(s) in the major hub(s).
--

On 28 dets, 23:52, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2:47 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
> > Earth.
> > The post (How long for transporters to replace airlines?) specified a
> > cabin 1mX1mX2,5m costs $70 millions to build, $6,18 to make one 5000
> > km trip.
> [...]
> > I see no reason why a few instants of transportation in
> > 100cmX100cmXstand-up height cabin would not be practical for 4 people.
>
> Or even more if the customers are Japanese used to commuting
> through Shinjuku or Shibuya.
>
> > Where would the next portals go?
>
> If you want to maximize profits? Start with a bunch of portals in
> central Tokyo connected to various currently lightly populated
> places in Japan (yes, there are plenty of places). Boom! You've
> created an insane explosion of real estate within commuting
> range of Tokyo. MILLIONS of commuters go through Shinjuku
> daily. You'd have enough demand for dozens of portals at
> 100,000 people per day per portal, even if the portal range were
> much shorter.
>
But if you transport 50 000 people per day to a single lightly
populated place in Japan, you promptly exhause the paying demand to
that particular destination. Anyway, why would anyone pay $1000 for a
trip to a lightly populated place by portal if he can reach the same
place slightly slower and far cheaper by train, bus or car?

> Next, do the same thing in New York and San Fransisco,
> connecting these densely populated cities with suburbs
> across the USA. Unfortunately, these customers are used
> to more room, and frankly take up more space, on average.
> Still, the daily commute pricing will be acceptable to
> millions.
>
> In other words, don't go around connecting densely populated
> cities with each other. Connect densely populated cities with
> excess demand for commuting real estate with currently
> lightly populated areas. You want to connect supply and
> demand.
>
Except the demand is not there. You want to connect to a place where a
huge number of people want to pay a lot of money to get, and where
theinfrastructure for moving on from there is already in place.

On Dec 29, 3:51 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
wrote:
> On 28 dets, 23:52, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If you want to maximize profits? Start with a bunch of portals in
> > central Tokyo connected to various currently lightly populated
> > places in Japan (yes, there are plenty of places). Boom! You've
> > created an insane explosion of real estate within commuting
> > range of Tokyo. MILLIONS of commuters go through Shinjuku
> > daily. You'd have enough demand for dozens of portals at
> > 100,000 people per day per portal, even if the portal range were
> > much shorter.

> But if you transport 50 000 people per day to a single lightly
> populated place in Japan, you promptly exhause the paying demand to
> that particular destination.

That's not the point--the point is to satisfy demand for places
to live within commuting distance of Tokyo. There aren't
many people living in the middle of nowhere right now, but
that's only because it's too far away from high paying jobs.

> Anyway, why would anyone pay $1000 for a
> trip to a lightly populated place by portal if he can reach the same
> place slightly slower and far cheaper by train, bus or car?

The cost you gave was actually $1.60 per trip, and with
this transport system being less expensive than a subway
system it would be quite profitable at ticket prices of $2+.
That's easily within the range for commuting to cities
like Tokyo, New York, San Fransisco, etc.

Consider that on an individual level, these commuting
costs would easily be offset by decreased housing costs.

You think you're going to make a profit charging $1000
per ticket, when others will be charging only $3 per
ticket? Demand for your services will be approximately
zero. The free market abhors profit margins beyond a
certain level.

> > Next, do the same thing in New York and San Fransisco,
> > connecting these densely populated cities with suburbs
> > across the USA. Unfortunately, these customers are used
> > to more room, and frankly take up more space, on average.
> > Still, the daily commute pricing will be acceptable to
> > millions.

> > In other words, don't go around connecting densely populated
> > cities with each other. Connect densely populated cities with
> > excess demand for commuting real estate with currently
> > lightly populated areas. You want to connect supply and
> > demand.

> Except the demand is not there. You want to connect to a place where a
> huge number of people want to pay a lot of money to get, and where
> theinfrastructure for moving on from there is already in place.

The only infrastructure you need on the city end is an existing
subway station, and a parking lot on the other end (which can
start off as a large empty field). Others will scramble to build
roads and housing within an hour's range of that parking lot.

Isaac Kuo

On 30 dets, 13:10, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:51 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
> wrote:
>
> > On 28 dets, 23:52, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If you want to maximize profits? Start with a bunch of portals in
> > > central Tokyo connected to various currently lightly populated
> > > places in Japan (yes, there are plenty of places). Boom! You've
> > > created an insane explosion of real estate within commuting
> > > range of Tokyo. MILLIONS of commuters go through Shinjuku
> > > daily. You'd have enough demand for dozens of portals at
> > > 100,000 people per day per portal, even if the portal range were
> > > much shorter.
> > But if you transport 50 000 people per day to a single lightly
> > populated place in Japan, you promptly exhause the paying demand to
> > that particular destination.
>
> That's not the point--the point is to satisfy demand for places
> to live within commuting distance of Tokyo. There aren't
> many people living in the middle of nowhere right now, but
> that's only because it's too far away from high paying jobs.
>
> > Anyway, why would anyone pay $1000 for a
> > trip to a lightly populated place by portal if he can reach the same
> > place slightly slower and far cheaper by train, bus or car?
>
> The cost you gave was actually $1.60 per trip, and with
> this transport system being less expensive than a subway
> system it would be quite profitable at ticket prices of $2+.
> That's easily within the range for commuting to cities
> like Tokyo, New York, San Fransisco, etc.
>
> Consider that on an individual level, these commuting
> costs would easily be offset by decreased housing costs.
>
> You think you're going to make a profit charging $1000
> per ticket, when others will be charging only $3 per
> ticket?

When others will be charging only $3, you won´t charge $1000 per
ticket.

But when your costs are $1.60 per trip and "others" are subsonic
airlines charging $5000 per ticket to make the 8 hours in subsonic
tube barely tolerable by the flat sleeper beds (consider the prices
Singapore Airways are charging for their A380 R suites!), why would
you charge $3? Anyone willing to pay $5000 to spend 8 hours on A380
would also pay $5000 to get to their destination instantly. If you
then sell the ticket at $5, the airline does not get $5000 - but you
do not get $4995 either - the traveller saves it, at no profit for
you.

> Demand for your services will be approximately
> zero. The free market abhors profit margins beyond a
> certain level.
>
> > > Next, do the same thing in New York and San Fransisco,
> > > connecting these densely populated cities with suburbs
> > > across the USA. Unfortunately, these customers are used
> > > to more room, and frankly take up more space, on average.
> > > Still, the daily commute pricing will be acceptable to
> > > millions.
> > > In other words, don't go around connecting densely populated
> > > cities with each other. Connect densely populated cities with
> > > excess demand for commuting real estate with currently
> > > lightly populated areas. You want to connect supply and
> > > demand.
> > Except the demand is not there. You want to connect to a place where a
> > huge number of people want to pay a lot of money to get, and where
> > theinfrastructure for moving on from there is already in place.
>
> The only infrastructure you need on the city end is an existing
> subway station, and a parking lot on the other end (which can
> start off as a large empty field). Others will scramble to build
> roads and housing within an hour's range of that parking lot.
>
> Isaac Kuo

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> When others will be charging only $3, you won´t charge $1000 per
> ticket.
>
> But when your costs are $1.60 per trip and "others" are subsonic
> airlines charging $5000 per ticket to make the 8 hours in subsonic
> tube barely tolerable by the flat sleeper beds (consider the prices
> Singapore Airways are charging for their A380 R suites!), why would
> you charge $3? Anyone willing to pay $5000 to spend 8 hours on A380
> would also pay $5000 to get to their destination instantly. If you
> then sell the ticket at $5, the airline does not get $5000 - but you
> do not get $4995 either - the traveller saves it, at no profit for
> you.

Your competition isn't going to be with airlines, those have already
lost this particular battle before it even began since they never served
these suburbs in the first place. Your competition is going to be the
teleport booth sitting next to your own.

On Dec 30, 7:53 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
wrote:
> On 30 dets, 13:10, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You think you're going to make a profit charging $1000
> > per ticket, when others will be charging only $3 per
> > ticket?

> When others will be charging only $3, you won´t charge $1000 per
> ticket.

Then you won't be charging $1000 per ticket.

> But when your costs are $1.60 per trip and "others" are subsonic
> airlines charging $5000 per ticket

Unless you're a magical mad scientist who is able to secretly
hand craft these portals by yourself using technology no one
else can possibly fathom, there is going to be too much
profit motive for a $1000 per ticket markup from $1.60 to work.
But people won't be willing to travel by a secret mysterious
system which isn't proven to be safe--certainly not when it
costs $1000 per ticket.

So, you have thousands of suppliers/workers/contractors
who can directly figure out how much your portal system
actually costs, and many more thousands who can figure
it out indirectly. Even before you start any operations,
everyone will know that the ticket prices are insanely
inflated.

Okay, so there are a few people who will pay a thousand
dollars to be one of the first to get a Playstation 3. So
perhaps there will be a few people willing to pay a
thousand dollars to be one of the first to use a transport
portal. But how many of those people would have spent
a thousand dollars on a PS3 if they knew in a few months
PS3s would be selling for $3 each? Any of them? They'd
be too embarrassed to admit the degree to which they
let themselves be bilked.

And in order to prove this system is safe at all, you'll need
to explain something about how the system works. This
is even more so because your business plan involves
international trips. International trips! Where customs
and security may inherently make any trip take hours.
This alone cuts away at the most appealing aspect of this
transportation method--the extremely short potential
trip times.

If you want to maximize your profits, get in on the ground
level at a sustainable business model you know will rake
in millions, day after day. If you don't, someone else will
and you'll be too late.

Isaac Kuo

On 29 dets, 05:13, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:47:50 -0800 (PST), Crown-Horned Snorkack
>
> <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
> >Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
> >Earth.
>
> >The post (How long for transporters to replace airlines?) specified a
> >cabin 1mX1mX2,5m costs $70 millions to build, $6,18 to make one 5000
> >km trip.
>
> Sorry for the interruption . . .
>
> It's completely irrelevant, immaterial, and has no bearing on the
> questions you're asking, but it irks me all the same -- it was a two
> cubic meter chamber that cost $70M; that is, one meter diameter by
> about two and a half meters tall, a comfortable size for one person.
>
Sorry. It is not comfortable size for one person.

250 cm height is doing nothing - 200 cm is enough. 100 cm diametre
rather than 100 cm square may mean that it is comfortable for 3
persons rather than 4, but certainly not 1.

> >Accepting the assumption that you could make a profit of $ 6 millions
> >per day at basically no cost whatever - and recoup your initial
> >investment of $70 millions in a fortnight, pocketing or investing all
> >the profits thereafter - how would you maximize your profits?
>
> Indirectly.
>
> Your operations would affect many sections of several industries. Some
> (like oil) would be hurt, others (like commuter aircraft) would be
> helped (at least at first). A little intelligent stock trading could
> reap benefits nearly as great as operational profits.
>
> Also, any land within easy walking distance of the booths is going to
> go up in value very quickly.
>
> The worst case scenario for that is if you're starting up at an
> airport, but even then, one gate area will easily handle the
> passengers that eight or ten gates do now. By getting long-term leases
> on those extra gates prior to starting operations, you'll be able to
> sublet to latte shops, currency exchanges, etc. for a small fortune.
> It might only add $10-15M a year to your bottom line, but every little
> bit helps.
>
> >Then next? 4 passengers in 4 seconds could be feasible - doors open, 4
> >people step in, doors close, doors open across the pond. But then it
> >means 80 000 people per day. Which would fill 200 747 flights per
> >day.There are not quite so many between JFK and LHR, I think.
>
> At the proper price, demand would increase to fill the supply. The
> only question is how many people the infrastructure (not only roads
> and rails but also things like customs) can accommodate.
>
Certainly. YTou could get better profits by selling fewer tickets at a
higher price.

> >Where would the next portals go?
>
> LHR to Mall of America? You could collect on both ends -- people pay
> for transport and the mall pays a stipend for each customer.
>
> For that matter, how long before people start building amusement
> parks, shopping malls, and the like specifically for teleputers? The
> fact that they could buy land in very remote areas, instead of paying
> high prices to be near large cities, would offset a considerable part
> of the cost of putting their booth(s) in the major hub(s).
> --

On 30 dets, 20:02, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 7:53 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
> wrote:
>
> > On 30 dets, 13:10, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You think you're going to make a profit charging $1000
> > > per ticket, when others will be charging only $3 per
> > > ticket?
> > When others will be charging only $3, you won´t charge $1000 per
> > ticket.
>
> Then you won't be charging $1000 per ticket.
>
> > But when your costs are $1.60 per trip and "others" are subsonic
> > airlines charging $5000 per ticket
>
> Unless you're a magical mad scientist who is able to secretly
> hand craft these portals by yourself using technology no one
> else can possibly fathom, there is going to be too much
> profit motive for a $1000 per ticket markup from $1.60 to work.
> But people won't be willing to travel by a secret mysterious
> system which isn't proven to be safe--certainly not when it
> costs $1000 per ticket.
>
> So, you have thousands of suppliers/workers/contractors
> who can directly figure out how much your portal system
> actually costs, and many more thousands who can figure
> it out indirectly. Even before you start any operations,
> everyone will know that the ticket prices are insanely
> inflated.
>
> Okay, so there are a few people who will pay a thousand
> dollars to be one of the first to get a Playstation 3. So
> perhaps there will be a few people willing to pay a
> thousand dollars to be one of the first to use a transport
> portal. But how many of those people would have spent
> a thousand dollars on a PS3 if they knew in a few months
> PS3s would be selling for $3 each? Any of them? They'd
> be too embarrassed to admit the degree to which they
> let themselves be bilked.
>
How many people feel that they want to be home or wherever this new
year eve, and pay thousands for the business and first class tickets,
because they do not want to send hours crammed in coach?

If they knew next new years eve they could take a portal for $5, would
it stop them from paying $5000 for first class airfare? They need to
arrive next day, not next year. Would it stop them from paying $5000
to take a portal?

> And in order to prove this system is safe at all, you'll need
> to explain something about how the system works. This
> is even more so because your business plan involves
> international trips. International trips! Where customs
> and security may inherently make any trip take hours.
> This alone cuts away at the most appealing aspect of this
> transportation method--the extremely short potential
> trip times.
>
> If you want to maximize your profits, get in on the ground
> level at a sustainable business model you know will rake
> in millions, day after day. If you don't, someone else will
> and you'll be too late.
>
Prepare a sustainable business model. But if you want to maximize your
profits, remember to cash in tha more than sustainable profits before
you get competition. You can invest the profits in the sustainable
business later.

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> On 29 dets, 05:13, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:47:50 -0800 (PST), Crown-Horned Snorkack
>>
>> <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
>>> Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
>>> Earth.
>>> The post (How long for transporters to replace airlines?) specified a
>>> cabin 1mX1mX2,5m costs $70 millions to build, $6,18 to make one 5000
>>> km trip.
>> Sorry for the interruption . . .
>
>> It's completely irrelevant, immaterial, and has no bearing on the
>> questions you're asking, but it irks me all the same -- it was a two
>> cubic meter chamber that cost $70M; that is, one meter diameter by
>> about two and a half meters tall, a comfortable size for one person.
>
> Sorry. It is not comfortable size for one person.

Huh? The hypothetical was too small, so in your rephrasing of the
hypothetical you made it ... smaller?

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Triumph cannot help being cruel.
-- Jose Ortega y Gasset

IsaacKuo <mechdan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And in order to prove this system is safe at all, you'll need
> to explain something about how the system works. This
> is even more so because your business plan involves
> international trips. International trips! Where customs
> and security may inherently make any trip take hours.
> This alone cuts away at the most appealing aspect of this
> transportation method--the extremely short potential
> trip times.

I am given to understand that border crossings between nearby friendly
nations tend to be very easy. The biggest example of this is the European
Schengen zone where you can travel between the countries in question with
no security or customs whatsoever. Ireland and the UK have the same
arrangement with each other. Going from, say, France to the UK involves
customs but my experience is that it is vastly less painful than the
procedure involved after crossing the Atlantic. I have no experience with
it, but from what I hear of the US-Canada crossing it also tends to be
relatively quick.

And note that security and customs are separate things. You need customs
on any kind of trip, but there is no need for security screening for a
portal trip.

Since this portal thingy will effectively make the two countries land
neighbors with instantaneous travel between them, the customs checks
should adjust to suit the speed of travel between them. I wouldn't
necessarily expect this to hold for a portal connecting, say, New York to
Ulan Bator, but one from New York to a friendly place like London would
probably be no trouble.

Note that one of the reasons customs service in airports is so
tremendously slow is because airport arrivals are extremely uneven and
queueing people makes the system much more efficient in terms of people
checked per employee-hour, since you can staff for average load instead of
trying to get people through customs as fast as they come off the plane.
Since the portal will operate much more evenly than widebodied airliners
disgorging a couple hundred passengers at once, the average delay to get
through customs should be much less than at an airport, at least if you
avoid rush hour.

(Amusing aside: the fastest customs experience I have ever had was on a
trip from Caen, France to London. I was the only American on the flight,
and indeed the only non-EU person on the flight. When we got to Stansted's
customs area, we were presented with two desks, one for EU citizens and
one for everyone else. The only reason I had to wait at all was because
they had to take a minute to find someone to staff my desk! They were
still churning through the first couple of rows of my flight when I left.)

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:51:29 -0800 (PST), Crown-Horned Snorkack
<chornedsnorkack@hush.ai> wrote:

>On 28 dets, 23:52, IsaacKuo <mech...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> In other words, don't go around connecting densely populated
>> cities with each other. Connect densely populated cities with
>> excess demand for commuting real estate with currently
>> lightly populated areas. You want to connect supply and
>> demand.
>>
>Except the demand is not there. You want to connect to a place where a
>huge number of people want to pay a lot of money to get, and where
>theinfrastructure for moving on from there is already in place.

Once you connect all of the world's major airports, you've probably
pretty well exhausted the "huge numbers willing to pay high prices"
situation, and you'll have to look at secondary, less immediately
profitable, options.

It is also possible that your profits from LHR--JFK will take a
substantial hit because the cities at both ends might quickly assess
high passenger fees because the volume of people you are moving in and
out of their area will put incredible strains on their already
marginal infrastructure. (Just tacking the fee onto the prices will
decrease the number of passengers, so there would be a delicate
balancing act.)

It seems to me that you'll soon have to make the shift from "big bucks
now" to more prosaic but stable investments.
--

Michael Ash wrote:
> I am given to understand that border crossings between nearby friendly
> nations tend to be very easy. The biggest example of this is the European
> Schengen zone where you can travel between the countries in question with
> no security or customs whatsoever. Ireland and the UK have the same
> arrangement with each other. Going from, say, France to the UK involves
> customs but my experience is that it is vastly less painful than the
> procedure involved after crossing the Atlantic. I have no experience with
> it, but from what I hear of the US-Canada crossing it also tends to be
> relatively quick.

Used to be. I haven't tried it myself in recent years, but now that
we're in a "post 9-11 world" where "everything's different now" the
rules are being changed so that passports are being required. I expect
the no-fly list or something similar will get hooked up to border
crossings too in the future, so there'll be lots of arbitrary turning
people away for hard-to-discern reasons.

Considering the US-Canada border is 4000 miles long and much of it runs
through sparsely populated wilderness or farmland, compared to the mere
1500 miles of US-Mexico border, I doubt any of this would have much
impact on actual smugglers or other ne'er-do-wells trying to cross it.
Oh well.

> Since this portal thingy will effectively make the two countries land
> neighbors with instantaneous travel between them, the customs checks
> should adjust to suit the speed of travel between them. I wouldn't
> necessarily expect this to hold for a portal connecting, say, New York to
> Ulan Bator, but one from New York to a friendly place like London would
> probably be no trouble.

One of the great things about a teleportation network like this will be
that nations will no longer be stuck having as neighbors just the
nations that happenstance and geography put next to them. If some
particular country decides to get unnecessarily obstinate and
restrictive about border crossing, its neighbors can choose to just skip
right over them.

I wonder what the American reaction would be if a mass transit
teleportation link was established between a Canadian city and Havana.
It'd be great for tourists and the tourist industry. But would the
Americans complain that such a link was violating their "teleportation
space", if such a thing is remotely meaningful?

On a somewhat larger scale and longer timeframe, I wonder if we might
start seeing EU-like "common border" arrangements being made between
countries that are scattered individually around the planet.

Bryan Derksen schrieb:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> I am given to understand that border crossings between nearby friendly
>> nations tend to be very easy. The biggest example of this is the European
>> Schengen zone where you can travel between the countries in question with
>> no security or customs whatsoever. Ireland and the UK have the same
>> arrangement with each other. Going from, say, France to the UK involves
>> customs but my experience is that it is vastly less painful than the
>> procedure involved after crossing the Atlantic. I have no experience with
>> it, but from what I hear of the US-Canada crossing it also tends to be
>> relatively quick.
>
> Used to be.

I've crossed the US/Canada border on the ground and in the air for a
couple of times in 2006/2007, and US customs were the same procedure and
took the same time in both cases, except that on ground, queues are
shorter and you've got to pay up six dollars in cash. On the other hand,
I'm neither a US nor a Canadian citizen.

HM Canadian customs are slightly nicer to speak to and they don't take
your fingerprints, but the difference isn't enormous.

mawa

Bryan Derksen wrote:

> Considering the US-Canada border is 4000 miles long and much of it runs
> through sparsely populated wilderness or farmland, compared to the mere
> 1500 miles of US-Mexico border, I doubt any of this would have much
> impact on actual smugglers or other ne'er-do-wells trying to cross it.
> Oh well.

That one is longer than the other doesn't change the fact that the
security problem is on the other rather than the one. Length of border
is not the primary concern; if it were, then things would shift. As it
stands, the length of the border is almost meaningless.

> I wonder what the American reaction would be if a mass transit
> teleportation link was established between a Canadian city and Havana.
> It'd be great for tourists and the tourist industry. But would the
> Americans complain that such a link was violating their "teleportation
> space", if such a thing is remotely meaningful?

Extremely unlikely, since there is no such provision in any kind of
reasonable interpretation of anything at all. If it were considered a
serious affront to national security for some reason, then there are
other diplomatic means. Claiming a meaningless right is silly -- and
unnecessary.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another. Either
alone would fail. -- John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963

Michael Ash skreiv:

> You've effectively built a subway line between the two cities. Demand will
> rise proportionate to the decrease in cost and increase in speed. I see no
> reason why an instantaneous and inexpensive link *wouldn't* be able to
> fill 3000 passengers/hour at peak times, at least. At that cost you could
> easily decide on a total lark to have dinner in London instead of lunch in
> New York, and a lot of people will do just that.

Indeed.

Estimating the demand for $1.60 instant travel London-NY by assuming
it's going to be similar to current demand for $500 8-hour travel
London-NY is more than sligthly silly.

Even if price was constant, a lot more people would travel if it was
more convenient. For example, currently it's simply not -practical- to
take a single-day trip to London for a business-meeting, the price as
such is acceptable, the problem is it doesn't make sense to spend 16
hours travelling for a 5-hour meeting. (well atleast it makes sense seldom)

More convenience and lower price would increase demand.

At 8-hour-$500 you get demand similar to current planes. 1-hour-$1000
would be enough to open the market for single-day-business-trip.
1-hour-$100 gives you a ton of weekend-trips, wouldn't surprise me if by
this point you're seeing atleast an order of magniture more travel than
currently.

At the lower limit, where london-ny is as easy as paying $2 and walking
trough a doorway, you've essentially merged the two cities.
Particularily if larger vehicles can also easily pass. You've also
completely changed the world, geographical differences would shrink,
cultures would mix (even) more.


Eivind Kjorstad

On 30 dets 2007, 19:59, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > When others will be charging only $3, you won´t charge $1000 per
> > ticket.
>
> > But when your costs are $1.60 per trip and "others" are subsonic
> > airlines charging $5000 per ticket to make the 8 hours in subsonic
> > tube barely tolerable by the flat sleeper beds (consider the prices
> > Singapore Airways are charging for their A380 R suites!), why would
> > you charge $3? Anyone willing to pay $5000 to spend 8 hours on A380
> > would also pay $5000 to get to their destination instantly. If you
> > then sell the ticket at $5, the airline does not get $5000 - but you
> > do not get $4995 either - the traveller saves it, at no profit for
> > you.
>
> Your competition isn't going to be with airlines, those have already
> lost this particular battle before it even began since they never served
> these suburbs in the first place. Your competition is going to be the
> teleport booth sitting next to your own.


Only when there is another teleport booth serving the selfsame suburb.
Which takes a lot of time, because building a booth takes $70 millions
and a lot of patience.

So long as you are the only teleport booth serving that suburb, your
competition is buses, trains and cars. Which are far cheaper to buy
than portals.

If you can afford to invest in one portal and can choose to compete
whether to serve a suburb (where existing bus service charges under
$10 per ticket) or an intercontinental route (where airlines charge
over $1000 per ticket) - what is the better use for your portal?

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> On 30 dets 2007, 19:59, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> competition isn't going to be with airlines, those have already
>> lost this particular battle before it even began since they never served
>> these suburbs in the first place. Your competition is going to be the
>> teleport booth sitting next to your own.
>
>
> Only when there is another teleport booth serving the selfsame suburb.
> Which takes a lot of time, because building a booth takes $70 millions
> and a lot of patience.

The premise was to link Tokyo to regions elsewhere in Japan to alleviate
the land shortage in that city, so the booths would cost a lot less than
$70 million. The price in the original description was both range and
volume dependent, though the example given didn't control the variables
so it's hard to say what the specific effects are. 70 million was for a
5000 km link, assuming a linear pgrogression we're only going to need
booths costing a few million dollars.

> So long as you are the only teleport booth serving that suburb, your
> competition is buses, trains and cars. Which are far cheaper to buy
> than portals.

They're not competing either for our purposes; the booths are being used
to open up new tracts of land by placing them within easy commuting
distance, so they wouldn't have been within easy commuting distance to
start with.

I wasn't initially enamored of this idea, but relatively short-range
teleporters for casual use are starting to seem quite reasonable. Even
just within-city. If a 5000 km booth costs $70,000,000, linear
progression makes a 5-km booth just $70,000 - significantly less than
the cost of a city bus, based on a quick websearch. And it would cost a
lot less in electricity for each trip, too, so you can turn a profit
with smaller fares. Many commercial centers would probably operate them
for free just to facilitate customers getting there. Since the original
premise required the booths to be unchangeably paired, the biggest
challenge is probably going to be figuring out where to cram all of the
booths in the transit centers.

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:26:34 +0100, Eivind Kjorstad
<eivindorama@gmail.com> wrote:

>1-hour-$100 gives you a ton of weekend-trips, wouldn't surprise me if by
>this point you're seeing atleast an order of magniture more travel than
>currently.

At that rate, I'd expect to see a lot of theatre goers, shoppers, etc.
--

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:03:21 GMT, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Since the original
> premise required the booths to be unchangeably paired, the biggest
> challenge is probably going to be figuring out where to cram all of the
> booths in the transit centers.

All booths connect to booths at the airport terminal, which now has
plenty of space. You teleport to the nearest airport, then walk to
the outgoing booth connected to your destination, or teleport to
another concourse.

There will be smaller hubs in developments etc.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:03:21 GMT, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Since the original
>> premise required the booths to be unchangeably paired, the biggest
>> challenge is probably going to be figuring out where to cram all of the
>> booths in the transit centers.
>
> All booths connect to booths at the airport terminal, which now has
> plenty of space. You teleport to the nearest airport, then walk to
> the outgoing booth connected to your destination, or teleport to
> another concourse.
>
> There will be smaller hubs in developments etc.

In my hometown the main airport is 11 km outside of city limits. Since
range costs money it makes little sense to do that; every teleporter
would have to pay for at least 11 km of extra range if everything went
through there. we'd want local teleport hubs to be embedded _inside_ the
city, as centrally located as possible. Space is cheap compared to the
booths themselves.

The long-distance teleporters could all hook up to the airport and then
have local teleporters linking the airport to the city's local teleport
hubs. That would have the benefit of keeping all the hassle of customs
in one facility.

On 30 dets 2007, 23:12, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > On 29 dets, 05:13, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:47:50 -0800 (PST), Crown-Horned Snorkack
>
> >> <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
> >>> Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
> >>> Earth.
> >>> The post (How long for transporters to replace airlines?) specified a
> >>> cabin 1mX1mX2,5m costs $70 millions to build, $6,18 to make one 5000
> >>> km trip.
> >> Sorry for the interruption . . .
>
> >> It's completely irrelevant, immaterial, and has no bearing on the
> >> questions you're asking, but it irks me all the same -- it was a two
> >> cubic meter chamber that cost $70M; that is, one meter diameter by
> >> about two and a half meters tall, a comfortable size for one person.
>
> > Sorry. It is not comfortable size for one person.
>
> Huh? The hypothetical was too small, so in your rephrasing of the
> hypothetical you made it ... smaller?
>
No.

The hypothetical was wrong, non-ptimal shape for carrying human
bodies.

Even so, the original hypothetical had underestimated its carrying
capacity.

On Dec 28 2007, 3:47 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack
<chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
> Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
> Earth.

In the short term for the civilian market ... zero.

The airline unions, Boeing and Airbus, and the airline industry will
all scream about this, fearing job loss. The result will be an
outright ban on the technology "long enough to study the effects".
Which congressman (or MP) is going to vote for anything then causes
the unemployment of about 600,000 people in the US and the same in
Europe?

I am aware that this technology will make things better for hundreds
of millions, but cost the jobs of about a million people. In our (the
US) current political system, that's a no-way-to-win bet. The job
loses will fight harder than the consumers. Minorities that care more
beat majorities that care less.

The market for this technology is exactly the chances of congress
voting for a technology that sends 600,000 people into unemployment.

Alternatively, picture the five year old who gets cancer and loses his
hair after teleporting. Remember, it's a jury trial and it's a bald
five year old dying of cancer.

This technology in the short term cannot overcome it's political
problems.

-Charles Talleyrand

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> On Dec 28 2007, 3:47 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack
> <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
>> Let´s try to estimate what the market is for dimensional portals on
>> Earth.
>
> In the short term for the civilian market ... zero.

Append "in the US" to that, and everything else in the post. The
original scenario indicated that the basic design of teleporters was
simple once you knew how, and could be made from commonly available
components, so I'm sure lots of other countries will be quick to pick up
on the technology.

Here's the new twist to consider; how would a third-world country that
starts out with very poor transportation infrastructure to begin with
take advantage of cheap teleportation? In the real world we're already
seeing a vaguely analogous situation where third-world countries are
developing very good cell phone networks since they don't have land
lines to begin with (and they'd be looted for copper if they tried
building them).

I'm thinking short-range bulk teleportation might be a reasonable
substitute for water pipes, for example. No need to tunnel through a
mountain, just run a power cable to operate a transmitter at the lake on
the other side. How about large teleporters capable of transmitting
cars? No need to build large-scale highways between cities that way.

On 1 jaan, 20:03, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > On 30 dets 2007, 19:59, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> competition isn't going to be with airlines, those have already
> >> lost this particular battle before it even began since they never served
> >> these suburbs in the first place. Your competition is going to be the
> >> teleport booth sitting next to your own.
>
> > Only when there is another teleport booth serving the selfsame suburb.
> > Which takes a lot of time, because building a booth takes $70 millions
> > and a lot of patience.
>
> The premise was to link Tokyo to regions elsewhere in Japan to alleviate
> the land shortage in that city, so the booths would cost a lot less than
> $70 million. The price in the original description was both range and
> volume dependent, though the example given didn't control the variables
> so it's hard to say what the specific effects are. 70 million was for a
> 5000 km link, assuming a linear pgrogression we're only going to need
> booths costing a few million dollars.
>
Ah yes. One of the subsequent posts in the original description DID
specify the form of dependence on range and volume. Rather strong
dependence on volume, and pretty weak dependence on range. It turned
out that a booth with the range of 5 km would still cost over $25
millions.

> > So long as you are the only teleport booth serving that suburb, your
> > competition is buses, trains and cars. Which are far cheaper to buy
> > than portals.
>
> They're not competing either for our purposes; the booths are being used
> to open up new tracts of land by placing them within easy commuting
> distance, so they wouldn't have been within easy commuting distance to
> start with.
>
But they were somehow reachable. Not easily and not commuting perhaps.

> I wasn't initially enamored of this idea, but relatively short-range
> teleporters for casual use are starting to seem quite reasonable. Even
> just within-city. If a 5000 km booth costs $70,000,000, linear
> progression makes a 5-km booth just $70,000 - significantly less than
> the cost of a city bus, based on a quick websearch. And it would cost a
> lot less in electricity for each trip, too, so you can turn a profit
> with smaller fares. Many commercial centers would probably operate them
> for free just to facilitate customers getting there. Since the original
> premise required the booths to be unchangeably paired, the biggest
> challenge is probably going to be figuring out where to cram all of the
> booths in the transit centers.

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> On 1 jaan, 20:03, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> The premise was to link Tokyo to regions elsewhere in Japan to alleviate
>> the land shortage in that city, so the booths would cost a lot less than
>> $70 million. The price in the original description was both range and
>> volume dependent, though the example given didn't control the variables
>> so it's hard to say what the specific effects are. 70 million was for a
>> 5000 km link, assuming a linear pgrogression we're only going to need
>> booths costing a few million dollars.
>>
> Ah yes. One of the subsequent posts in the original description DID
> specify the form of dependence on range and volume. Rather strong
> dependence on volume, and pretty weak dependence on range. It turned
> out that a booth with the range of 5 km would still cost over $25
> millions.

I don't recall Wildepad ever clarifying the relationship between those
variables independently. But even $25 million is still much less than
the cost of a rail link or highway.

>> They're not competing either for our purposes; the booths are being used
>> to open up new tracts of land by placing them within easy commuting
>> distance, so they wouldn't have been within easy commuting distance to
>> start with.
>>
> But they were somehow reachable. Not easily and not commuting perhaps.

But ease of reachability is actually of primary importance for our
purposes here; you can't reasonably commute between work and a house
that takes 6 hours to reach by bus, but you can commute if most of that
time is shaved off via a teleport link. Without the quick and easy
teleport link the region is simply not useful as a "suburb" even if you
can still reach it via other transit.

On 9 jaan, 22:11, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > On 1 jaan, 20:03, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> The premise was to link Tokyo to regions elsewhere in Japan to alleviate
> >> the land shortage in that city, so the booths would cost a lot less than
> >> $70 million. The price in the original description was both range and
> >> volume dependent, though the example given didn't control the variables
> >> so it's hard to say what the specific effects are. 70 million was for a
> >> 5000 km link, assuming a linear pgrogression we're only going to need
> >> booths costing a few million dollars.
>
> > Ah yes. One of the subsequent posts in the original description DID
> > specify the form of dependence on range and volume. Rather strong
> > dependence on volume, and pretty weak dependence on range. It turned
> > out that a booth with the range of 5 km would still cost over $25
> > millions.
>
> I don't recall Wildepad ever clarifying the relationship between those
> variables independently.

I do. However, the post was not archived.

> But even $25 million is still much less than
> the cost of a rail link or highway.
>
But highways and rail links are paid for already.

> >> They're not competing either for our purposes; the booths are being used
> >> to open up new tracts of land by placing them within easy commuting
> >> distance, so they wouldn't have been within easy commuting distance to
> >> start with.
>
> > But they were somehow reachable. Not easily and not commuting perhaps.
>
> But ease of reachability is actually of primary importance for our
> purposes here; you can't reasonably commute between work and a house
> that takes 6 hours to reach by bus, but you can commute if most of that
> time is shaved off via a teleport link. Without the quick and easy
> teleport link the region is simply not useful as a "suburb" even if you
> can still reach it via other transit.

6 hours by bus is something like 500 km. Which is the distance between
Tokyo and Osaka.

The train travel time was something like 6 and half hours before
Shinkansen opened in 1964. It is around 2 and a half hours now. Yet
airplanes still fly between Tokyo and Osaka.

A 500 km booth link from Tokyo to Osaka should cost about $50 millions
- and the tickets should fetch higher prices than either Shinkansen or
airplane.

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> On 9 jaan, 22:11, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> But even $25 million is still much less than
>> the cost of a rail link or highway.
>>
> But highways and rail links are paid for already.

But they don't _work_. Teleport booths do things that highways and rail
links can't, they make the transit time effectively zero.

>> But ease of reachability is actually of primary importance for our
>> purposes here; you can't reasonably commute between work and a house
>> that takes 6 hours to reach by bus, but you can commute if most of that
>> time is shaved off via a teleport link. Without the quick and easy
>> teleport link the region is simply not useful as a "suburb" even if you
>> can still reach it via other transit.
>
> 6 hours by bus is something like 500 km. Which is the distance between
> Tokyo and Osaka.
>
> The train travel time was something like 6 and half hours before
> Shinkansen opened in 1964. It is around 2 and a half hours now. Yet
> airplanes still fly between Tokyo and Osaka.
>
> A 500 km booth link from Tokyo to Osaka should cost about $50 millions
> - and the tickets should fetch higher prices than either Shinkansen or
> airplane.

And, again, that doesn't actually accomplish what's needed. A teleport
link has zero transit time and the ticket costs a dollar or two. No
combination of train or plane is going to approach that.

On 10 jaan, 20:42, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > On 9 jaan, 22:11, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> But even $25 million is still much less than
> >> the cost of a rail link or highway.
>
> > But highways and rail links are paid for already.
>
> But they don't _work_. Teleport booths do things that highways and rail
> links can't, they make the transit time effectively zero.
>
>
>
> >> But ease of reachability is actually of primary importance for our
> >> purposes here; you can't reasonably commute between work and a house
> >> that takes 6 hours to reach by bus, but you can commute if most of that
> >> time is shaved off via a teleport link. Without the quick and easy
> >> teleport link the region is simply not useful as a "suburb" even if you
> >> can still reach it via other transit.
>
> > 6 hours by bus is something like 500 km. Which is the distance between
> > Tokyo and Osaka.
>
> > The train travel time was something like 6 and half hours before
> > Shinkansen opened in 1964. It is around 2 and a half hours now. Yet
> > airplanes still fly between Tokyo and Osaka.
>
> > A 500 km booth link from Tokyo to Osaka should cost about $50 millions
> > - and the tickets should fetch higher prices than either Shinkansen or
> > airplane.
>
> And, again, that doesn't actually accomplish what's needed. A teleport
> link has zero transit time and the ticket costs a dollar or two. No
> combination of train or plane is going to approach that.

But no plane will achieve zero transit time from Tokyo to Osaka, at
any cost.

Obviously, the people who pay who fly Tokyo to Osaka even though they
could opt for Shinkansen get something which is worth the ticket
price. Why shouldn´t the teleport link charge more than airplane does,
simply because it supplies a better value (zero transit time)?

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> On 10 jaan, 20:42, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> And, again, that doesn't actually accomplish what's needed. A teleport
>> link has zero transit time and the ticket costs a dollar or two. No
>> combination of train or plane is going to approach that.
>
> But no plane will achieve zero transit time from Tokyo to Osaka, at
> any cost.
>
> Obviously, the people who pay who fly Tokyo to Osaka even though they
> could opt for Shinkansen get something which is worth the ticket
> price. Why shouldn´t the teleport link charge more than airplane does,
> simply because it supplies a better value (zero transit time)?

Because the profit margin would be completely unsustainable, your
competitors would undercut you at will and take as many of your
customers as they cared to take. The price-gouging would be so blatant
that people might avoid using your teleport booth for that reason alone.

On 10 jaan, 22:53, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > On 10 jaan, 20:42, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> And, again, that doesn't actually accomplish what's needed. A teleport
> >> link has zero transit time and the ticket costs a dollar or two. No
> >> combination of train or plane is going to approach that.
>
> > But no plane will achieve zero transit time from Tokyo to Osaka, at
> > any cost.
>
> > Obviously, the people who pay who fly Tokyo to Osaka even though they
> > could opt for Shinkansen get something which is worth the ticket
> > price. Why shouldn´t the teleport link charge more than airplane does,
> > simply because it supplies a better value (zero transit time)?
>
> Because the profit margin would be completely unsustainable, your
> competitors would undercut you at will and take as many of your
> customers as they cared to take. The price-gouging would be so blatant
> that people might avoid using your teleport booth for that reason alone.

Once the competitors exist, yes.

But even when there is the second booth... Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen
charges about $130 now for 3 hour trip. A teleport booth which
competes against Shinkansen alone could gouge $200 per instant ticket
and pocket basically all of it as profit. When you invest $50 millions
to set up a next booth, where would you choose to build the pair of
booths? Also Tokyo-Osaka? The price will instantly drop to $2.00 per
ticket, and your net profit is $0.20 per ticket, not $198 any more.
Alternatively, the second booth could be set up on Tokyo-Sapporo line.
Trains now cost $200+ for 10+ hour trip, so instant teleport could
charge $300 ticket, basically all of it profit again. So, where would
you rather invest in a second booth - to get 20 cent profit from large
volume due to price war, or gouge $300 profit from an only slightly
smaller volume?

On Jan 10, 9:29 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai>
wrote:
> On 10 jaan, 22:53, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> So, where would
> you rather invest in a second booth - to get 20 cent profit from large
> volume due to price war, or gouge $300 profit from an only slightly
> smaller volume?

I don't really think $300 *marginal* profit would actually be gouging.

What is the throughput for the booths and how long do they last ?

If a booth costs $50 million @10% interest, then it has a cost of $5
million per year just for interest.

Assuming that it has to be paid back within 5 years, then that adds
another $10 million per year to the cost associated with the loan.

I think these are reasonable estimates for a tech that nobody knows
its reliability, not matter how reliable the inventor claims his tech
is. The companies would likely have to worry about insurance due to
the process causing side effects or just "losing" a person.

$15 million per year works out at $1712 per hour on repayments alone.
The booth would also require a building to be built to provide
customer services and protect the machine from the weather and they
would have to pay for staff. Also, there is the cost of paying back
the money spent on research or paying for licensing the patent (if the
company isn't the original inventor).

At 5 mins per person on average, that works out at $142 per person
just for capital costs. On that basis, I think the ticket price would
end up in the $300+ region at least (50% profit verses capital costs
seems perfectly reasonable and wouldn't be gouging, since they have
lots of other costs and anyway ... they have a short term monopoly).

It would probably be possible to move people through faster. However,
that assumes 24/7 use of the machine. There would likely be a rush
hours and quiet periods. Companies would probably try to smooth out
the flow of passengers with cheap mid-day and nightime rates as any
money they can get it better than leaving the machine dormant.

For inter-continental travel, it may be smoother as people who fly are
already willing to leave at night and so, there would be demand during
nightime.

On flights, when luggage is checked in, it probably takes at least 1
minute per passenger, but I guess that is not a perfect equivalent, as
they would have multiple check-ins and then keep the queue for the
booth full.

Also, I think people judge gouging by looking at what other similar
companies charge. If all teleporting companies are charging $500-1000
per ticket, people will just assume that that is what it costs. The
companies would just agree that the electricity costs per trip are
tiny but then point out that it costs them millions to build a booth
in the first place.

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> Once the competitors exist, yes.

Competitors will exist very quickly. Of course the very first booths
will be set up where there aren't existing booths, but that's not going
to last for long. These things are easy to build and the designs are open.

> When you invest $50 millions
> to set up a next booth, where would you choose to build the pair of
> booths? Also Tokyo-Osaka?

If there's a monopoly that's price-gouging then there's an opportunity
there. There may be better opportunities at first but once those are
gone then yes, Tokyo-Osaka.

Do you think there will only be one service provider for any given pair
of destinations? Situations like that can persist for rail lines where
new infrastructure is hard to build, but this is easier even than
setting up a new airline or bus route.

raphfrk wrote:
> I don't really think $300 *marginal* profit would actually be gouging.

I've had a heck of a time trying to find solid numbers for real-life
transportation infrastructure projects, but this looks pretty useful,
especially since I live in Edmonton and am familiar with both Edmonton's
LRT and Calgary's C-Train first-hand:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construction_and_op eration>

$50 million is what a two-mile length of C-Train would cost. Two miles
of track has a daily boarding rate of 36000 people, which is 25 people
per minute. Considering varying load levels over the course of a day 25
people per minute is a bit high, but you can drop the per-booth
ridership by an order of magnitude (boosting the price from $2 to $20
per ticket to compensate) and still be way under your $300 price point.

But that's assuming that the economics are solely covered by the ticket
price. The original idea behind this subthread was to use teleport
booths to open up remote regions as housing for people who work in
Tokyo, so compare the cost of building a housing development in downtown
Tokyo vs. the cost of building the same capacity housing development out
in the boonies plus $50 million dollars worth of teleport booths. The
developer may be able to simply include the cost of the booths as part
of the basic infrastructure and recover it from the boost in housing
value that a teleport link to downtown Tokyo would provide.

On Jan 11, 11:47 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> raphfrk wrote:
> > I don't really think $300 *marginal* profit would actually be gouging.
>
> I've had a heck of a time trying to find solid numbers for real-life
> transportation infrastructure projects, but this looks pretty useful,
> especially since I live in Edmonton and am familiar with both Edmonton's
> LRT and Calgary's C-Train first-hand:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construct...>
>
> $50 million is what a two-mile length of C-Train would cost. Two miles
> of track has a daily boarding rate of 36000 people, which is 25 people
> per minute. Considering varying load levels over the course of a day 25
> people per minute is a bit high, but you can drop the per-booth
> ridership by an order of magnitude (boosting the price from $2 to $20
> per ticket to compensate) and still be way under your $300 price point.

However, a train has multiple entrances. Also, on each entrance, the
people walk in one after each other.

The teleporter can only transport one person at a time right ?

This means you can't just open the door and have 10 people quickly
board in line. One person has to enter and the door is shut and then
they exit the other side.

Did the other thread mention cycle time ?

> But that's assuming that the economics are solely covered by the ticket
> price.

This will not work if the inherent ticket price is around $100+ per
trip each way.

For it to work the marginal price per ticket would need to be small.

If you can only send 100 people through per hour, then you can only
support say 50-60 houses who want to commute during rush hour. This
means that you are effectively adding $1 million per house and thus in
effect paying around $50k per year for their teleporter pass.

It could be used to create an affluent subarb, but it isn't going to
work for the bulk of the population (and profit is normally obtained
by selling to the 'masses').

Another option would be to have a gated community where only a few of
the people actually commute. The teleporter could be used to bring
food and supplies in and rubbish out. It would also provide a method
to travel on the rare occasions that it is required.

Bryan Derksen skreiv:

> If there's a monopoly that's price-gouging then there's an opportunity
> there. There may be better opportunities at first but once those are
> gone then yes, Tokyo-Osaka.

There's a problem with that though; the monopoly will do what they
traditionally do;

If, for example, the lowest profitable price is $10/trip, then up until
the day before you open your booth, they'll be charging $200. Then,
starting the minute your booth opens, they'll charge $9. You'll never
turn a profit, nevermind making back your investment.

After you're bankrupt, they buy your booth for pennies on the dollar
(it's profitable for -them- but not for anyone else) and turn the price
back up to $200. Rinse and Repeat.

This strategy doesn't work if you've got equally deep pockets, or if
there are working anti-monopoly-abuse laws in the country which seems
pretty universally -not- the case currently.


Eivind Kjørstad

Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
> There's a problem with that though; the monopoly will do what they
> traditionally do;
>
> If, for example, the lowest profitable price is $10/trip, then up until
> the day before you open your booth, they'll be charging $200. Then,
> starting the minute your booth opens, they'll charge $9. You'll never
> turn a profit, nevermind making back your investment.
>
> After you're bankrupt, they buy your booth for pennies on the dollar
> (it's profitable for -them- but not for anyone else) and turn the price
> back up to $200. Rinse and Repeat.
>
> This strategy doesn't work if you've got equally deep pockets, or if
> there are working anti-monopoly-abuse laws in the country which seems
> pretty universally -not- the case currently.

I guess that explains why there's only one airline serving any given
flight route.

(It's actually not the case that there aren't working
anti-monopoly-abuse laws or other means of breaking such shenannigans,
in other words. If all else fails the municipal governments that would
benefit from the improved transit could simply buy the booths and run
them themselves.)

raphfrk wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:47 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Did the other thread mention cycle time ?

I think that's another feature that was left undefined. I think the
assumptions that you're making seem more restrictive than the original
scenario seemed to imply, but I suppose there's room to redefine the
scenario whichever direction one prefers.

> Another option would be to have a gated community where only a few of
> the people actually commute. The teleporter could be used to bring
> food and supplies in and rubbish out. It would also provide a method
> to travel on the rare occasions that it is required.

If the teleporter's too expensive to make money transporting people, I
don't see any way it'd make economic sense to use it to transport garbage.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:35:52 +0100, Eivind Kjorstad
<eivindorama@gmail.com> wrote:


>If, for example, the lowest profitable price is $10/trip, then up until
>the day before you open your booth, they'll be charging $200. Then,
>starting the minute your booth opens, they'll charge $9. You'll never
>turn a profit, nevermind making back your investment.

Even the threat of that keeps most potential competitors from even
trying in any area which requires a large capital investment in
equipment, such as paint or hypodermic needles.
--

On Jan 12, 11:08 pm, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:35:52 +0100, Eivind Kjorstad
>
> <eivindor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If, for example, the lowest profitable price is $10/trip, then up until
> >the day before you open your booth, they'll be charging $200. Then,
> >starting the minute your booth opens, they'll charge $9. You'll never
> >turn a profit, nevermind making back your investment.
>
> Even the threat of that keeps most potential competitors from even
> trying in any area which requires a large capital investment in
> equipment, such as paint or hypodermic needles.
> --

I searched the other thread and can't find the distance info.
Wildepad, would it be possible for your to turn off your 'no archive'
flag when you start (and add more info to) a thread like this as it
means that people can see the original scenario.

The only reference in the other thread is 'non-canon' from another
poster. It says 10% increase in construction price for each doubling
in distance.

Since the portals are mobile, it would be possible for competition to
start to kick in.

Adding one more portal to the world would only slightly decrease the
price per ticket. This means that more and more will be built until
the average ticket prices just cover costs. Also, there is a big
incentive to drop the cost per portal. Research could also be aimed
at increasing the throughput.

When you buy a portal, you would try to find the spot that will yield
maximum return. This means that you need to be reasonably far away
from any other portals. In a 'crowded' area, companies would tend to
decide to move away and likewise, if there is very few portals around,
then companies would tend to move there (or setup their new portals
there).

Also, the exact catchment area of a portal is not fixed. If you
increase your prices, people who live around the same distance between
you and another portal might decide to go to the other portal. As
your price rises, your catchment area shrinks. Ofc, in the
'artificial suburb', that wouldn't be the case as there are no other
portals.

A company could in theory do some market segmentation by selling
ticket cheaper to people who live further away from their location.
This might cause resentment of nearby customers. They could justify
it by saying that customers who have to drive effectively get a worse
service. Another option would be to give people who live further away
free parking and other benefits.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:19:47 -0800 (PST), raphfrk
<raphfrk@netscape.net> wrote:

>I searched the other thread and can't find the distance info.
>Wildepad, would it be possible for your to turn off your 'no archive'
>flag when you start (and add more info to) a thread like this as it
>means that people can see the original scenario.

Um, I could, but that wouldn't be nearly as useful as you may think,
and it might stifle some responses.


>The only reference in the other thread is 'non-canon' from another
>poster. It says 10% increase in construction price for each doubling
>in distance.

It is non-canon because it was never mentioned in the original post.

Why was that? Because the question was how long it would take for
teleportation to become legal/accepted/etc., and the numbers given
were adequate for that sort of analysis.

I was hoping to get answers along the lines of: "we'd have to send x
rats through a minimum of y times, then study z generations of their
progeny in order to establish whether it was truly and acceptable
safe, and that process would take w decades," and then someone else
would pop up and say: "we could do a lot of tests using bacteria, and
that would only take v years." etc. etc. etc.

A few people did give their estimation of the time, but most posters
had their own ideas.

And that, imo, is how these discussions should work. While I might
growl a bit now and then and try to steer a poster back to the
original question, because I do want an answer, it never ceases to
amaze me how many times people come up with answers to questions I
never thought to ask.

If the original post hung around forever, it might dissuade some
people from jumping in and taking the thread further away from its
original topic.


But now, to answer your (implied) question -- what was in my backbrain
is that from the starting point of 1 cubic mm going 7 inches, the
price went up 40% when doubling the volume and 10% when doubling the
distance, reaching a cost for a man-sized (with a modicum of luggage)
JFK to LAX of approx. $70M. (Another reason I didn't include those
figures in the original post is that I can't find my original
calculations, so I can't swear those are the numbers I used or that
I'm not mixing up the i/o of several sets of calculations.)

Don't ask how/why I came up with those percentages -- the idea was old
before I started putting numbers to it, and I did the calculations so
long ago that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking of at that
moment. I may have been looking at the graphs of the prices of copper
and lutetium when bought in bulk, or I might have thinking of how
plate thickness affects capacitance vs insulation thickness to
withstand such a charge, or any number of other things.


>A company could in theory do some market segmentation by selling
>ticket cheaper to people who live further away from their location.
>This might cause resentment of nearby customers. They could justify
>it by saying that customers who have to drive effectively get a worse
>service. Another option would be to give people who live further away
>free parking and other benefits.

Charging different people different rates might be illegal.

It seems to me that it becomes a question of how much an area's
infrastructure would change -- bus lines would quickly alter their
routes to include a stop at your portal, but what about rail/subway
lines?
--

On 12 jaan, 03:49, raphfrk <raph...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:47 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > raphfrk wrote:
> > > I don't really think $300 *marginal* profit would actually be gouging.
>
> > I've had a heck of a time trying to find solid numbers for real-life
> > transportation infrastructure projects, but this looks pretty useful,
> > especially since I live in Edmonton and am familiar with both Edmonton's
> > LRT and Calgary's C-Train first-hand:
>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construct...>
>
> > $50 million is what a two-mile length of C-Train would cost. Two miles
> > of track has a daily boarding rate of 36000 people, which is 25 people
> > per minute. Considering varying load levels over the course of a day 25
> > people per minute is a bit high, but you can drop the per-booth
> > ridership by an order of magnitude (boosting the price from $2 to $20
> > per ticket to compensate) and still be way under your $300 price point.
>
> However, a train has multiple entrances. Also, on each entrance, the
> people walk in one after each other.
>
> The teleporter can only transport one person at a time right ?
>
I do not think so. The original specifications was 100x100x250 cm.
Which is about the size of a lift booth. The OP did later clarify that
it was more a cylinder 100 cm diametre - but even so it would be more
likely to have 3 occupants rather than 1.

> This means you can't just open the door and have 10 people quickly
> board in line. One person has to enter and the door is shut and then
> they exit the other side.
>
> Did the other thread mention cycle time ?
>
I think it was assumed negligible trip time - doors open, all three or
people in, doors close, doors open the other side, all three or four
out.

> > But that's assuming that the economics are solely covered by the ticket
> > price.
>
> This will not work if the inherent ticket price is around $100+ per
> trip each way.
>
> For it to work the marginal price per ticket would need to be small.
>
> If you can only send 100 people through per hour, then you can only
> support say 50-60 houses who want to commute during rush hour. This
> means that you are effectively adding $1 million per house and thus in
> effect paying around $50k per year for their teleporter pass.
>
I think 1000 per hour is probably closer.

> It could be used to create an affluent subarb, but it isn't going to
> work for the bulk of the population (and profit is normally obtained
> by selling to the 'masses').
>
> Another option would be to have a gated community where only a few of
> the people actually commute. The teleporter could be used to bring
> food and supplies in and rubbish out. It would also provide a method
> to travel on the rare occasions that it is required.