AI and accelerated-compute workloads have rewritten the assumptions colocation buyers used to rely on, particularly around power density, which now regularly exceeds what older facilities were designed to deliver.
The economics of data center capacity have changed faster in the last two years than in the previous decade. Anyone evaluating their options today is working in a genuinely different market.
Where buyers get it wrong
Treating tier level as a proxy for reliability is a common shortcut that backfires. Design tier describes redundancy on paper; actual uptime depends on maintenance discipline, staffing, and how the facility has behaved under real incidents.
The most expensive mistake is optimising for the number everyone sees β the monthly rack rate β while ignoring the numbers nobody asks about until the invoice arrives: cross-connects, remote hands, power overage, and renewal escalators.
The factors that actually move the needle
Headline pricing is the least reliable basis for comparison. Two facilities quoting similar rates can differ enormously once you account for power redundancy, cross-connect fees, remote-hands rates, and the small print around escalations and renewals.
Connectivity richness is frequently underweighted. A carrier-neutral facility with a dense ecosystem of networks and direct cloud on-ramps can save more over a contract term than a modest difference in the rack rate ever will.
Why it matters now
Power has overtaken floor space as the binding constraint in most primary markets. Vacancy rates have fallen to record lows, and the practical effect is that capacity β particularly high-density capacity β increasingly needs to be reserved well ahead of when you actually need it.
The market has split in two. Standard enterprise workloads still run comfortably at three to five kilowatts a rack, while accelerated-compute deployments are pushing twenty, fifty, even a hundred kilowatts. Those two worlds are priced and provisioned very differently, and conflating them is a common and expensive mistake.
Planning for what comes next
Whatever you commit to today, leave yourself room to grow. The right partner offers a clear path from a single rack to a private suite, and from standard density to liquid-cooled high-density halls, without forcing a migration.
Term length is a lever worth pulling thoughtfully. Longer commitments unlock materially better rates and, increasingly, priority access to scarce capacity β but only commit ahead if you are confident in the trajectory.
A short checklist before you sign
- Read the exit and renewal terms as carefully as the price
- Clarify remote-hands response times and what is included versus billed separately
- Request recent incident reports, not just a summary uptime percentage
- Map the network ecosystem: carriers, internet exchanges, and cloud on-ramps
- Write down your power, space, and connectivity needs before you talk to anyone
The bottom line
The teams that get this right are rarely the ones with the most resources β they are the ones who asked better questions earlier in the process.
