Capital as a Service: The Hyperscaler Shift This is not just another project financing. It points to a model in which hyperscalers can externalize a significant portion of the capital required for AI campuses while retaining operational control. Under the Hyperion structure, Meta provides construction and property management, while Blue Owl supplies capital at scale alongside infrastructure expertise. Reuters described the transaction as Meta’s largest private capital deal to date, with the campus projected to exceed 2 gigawatts of capacity. For Blue Owl, it marks a shift in role: from backing developers serving hyperscalers to working directly with a hyperscaler to structure ownership more efficiently at scale. Hyperion also helps explain why this model is gaining traction. Hyperscalers are now deploying capital at a pace that makes flexibility a strategic priority. Structures like the Meta–Blue Owl JV allow them to continue expanding infrastructure without fully absorbing the balance-sheet impact of each new campus. Analyst commentary cited by Reuters suggested the arrangement could help Meta mitigate risk and avoid concentrating too much capital in land, buildings, and long-lived infrastructure, preserving capacity for additional facilities and ongoing AI investment. That is the service Blue Owl is effectively providing. Not just capital, but balance-sheet flexibility at a time when AI infrastructure demand is stretching even the largest technology companies. With major tech firms projected to spend hundreds of billions annually on AI infrastructure, that capability is becoming central to how the next generation of campuses gets built. The Capital Baseline Resets In early 2026, hyperscalers effectively reset the capital baseline for the sector. Alphabet projected $175 billion to $185 billion in annual capex, citing continued constraints across servers, data centers, and networking. Amazon pointed to roughly $200 billion, up from $131 billion the prior year, while noting persistent demand pressure in AWS. Meta

“OpenAI is embattled on several fronts. Anthropic has been doing very well in the enterprise, and OpenAI’s cash burn might be a problem if it wants to go public at an astronomical $800 billion+ valuation. This is especially true with higher energy prices due to geopolitics, and the public and regulators increasingly skeptical of AI companies, especially outside of the United States,” Roberts said. “I see these moves as OpenAI tightening its belt a bit and being more deliberate about spending as it moves past the interesting tech demo stage of its existence and is expected to provide a real return for investors.” He added, “I expect it’s a symptom of a broader problem, which is that OpenAI has thrown some good money after bad in bets that didn’t work out, like the Sora platform it just shut down, and it’s under increasing pressure to translate its first-mover advantage into real upside for its investors. Spending operational money instead of capital money might give it some flexibility in the short term, and perhaps that’s what this is about.” All in all, he noted, “on a scale of business-ending event to nothingburger, I would put it somewhere in the middle, maybe a little closer to nothingburger.” Acceligence CIO Yuri Goryunov agreed with Roberts, and said, “OpenAI has a problem with commercialization and runaway operating costs, for sure. They are trying to rightsize their commitments and make sure that they deliver on their core products before they run out of money.” Goryunov described OpenAI’s arrangement with Microsoft in Norway as “prudent financial engineering” that allows it to access the data center resources without having to tie up too much capital. “It’s financial discipline. OpenAI [executives] are starting to behave like grownups.” Forrester senior analyst Alvin Nguyen echoed those thoughts. 

Power: Redundant utility design in a power-constrained market The tour made equally clear that in Manhattan, power is still the central gating factor. The brochure describes SDC Manhattan as offering 18MW of aggregate power delivered to the building, backed by redundant electrical and mechanical systems, backup generators, and Tier III-type concurrent maintainability. The December 2025 press release updated that picture in a more market-facing way, noting that Sabey is one of the only colocation providers in Manhattan with available power, including nearly a megawatt of turnkey power and 7MW of utility power across two powered shell spaces. Bajrushi’s explanation of the electrical topology helped show how Sabey has made that possible. Standing on the third floor, he described a ring bus tying together four Con Edison feeds. Bajrushi said the feeds all originate from the same substation but take different paths into the building, creating redundancy outside the building as well as within it. He added that if one feed fails, the ring bus remains unaffected, and that only one feed is needed to power everything currently in operation. He also noted that Sabey has the ability to add two more feeds in the future if expansion calls for it. That matters in a city where available utility capacity is hard to come by and where many data center conversations end not with square footage but with a megawatt number. Bajrushi also noted that physical space is not the core constraint at 375 Pearl. He said the building still has plenty of room for future buildouts, including open areas that could become additional white space, chiller capacity, or other infrastructure. The bigger question, he suggested, is how and when power and supporting systems get installed. That observation aligns neatly with Sabey’s press release. The company is effectively arguing that SDC

Mills has pushed for an exemption protecting a proposed $550 million project at the former Androscoggin paper mill in Jay, arguing it would reuse existing infrastructure without straining the grid. Lawmakers rejected that exemption. Mills’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A national wave, an unanswered federal question Maine is one of at least 12 states now weighing moratorium or restraint legislation, alongside more than 300 data center bills filed across 30-plus states in the current session, according to legislative tracking firm MultiState. The shared concern is energy cost. Data centers could consume up to 12% of total US electricity by 2028, according to the US Department of Energy. On March 25, Senator Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the AI Data Center Moratorium Act in Congress, which would impose a nationwide freeze on all new data center construction until Congress passes AI safety legislation. The Trump administration has pursued a different path from the legislative approach being taken in states. On March 4, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI signed the White House’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a voluntary commitment by hyperscalers to fund their own power generation rather than pass grid costs to ratepayers. The pledge, published in the Federal Register on March 9, carries no penalties for noncompliance or auditing requirements.

In a world of autonomous agents, identity and access become the de facto safety rails. Astrix is designed to inventory these non-human identities, map their permissions, detect toxic combinations, and remediate overprivileged access before it becomes an exploit or a data leak. That capability integrates directly with Cisco’s broader zero-trust and identity-centric security strategy, in which the network enforces policy based on who or what the entity is, not on which subnet it resides in. How this strengthens Cisco’s secure networking story Cisco has positioned itself as the vendor that can deliver “AI-ready, secure networks” spanning campus, data center, cloud, and edge. Galileo and Astrix extend that narrative from infrastructure into AI behavior and identity governance: The network becomes the high‑performance, policy‑enforcing substrate for AI traffic and data. Splunk plus Galileo becomes the observability plane for AI agents, linking AI incidents to network and application signals. Security plus Astrix becomes the identity and permission-control layer that constrains what AI agents can actually do within the environment. This is the core of Cisco’s emerging “Secure AI” posture: not just using AI to improve security but securing AI itself as it is embedded across every workflow, API, and device. For customers, that means AI initiatives can be brought under the same operational and compliance disciplines already used for networks and apps, rather than existing as unmanaged risk islands. Why this matters to Cisco customers Most large Cisco accounts are exactly the enterprises now experimenting with AI agents in contact centers, IT operations, and business workflows. They face three practical problems: They cannot see what agents are doing end‑to‑end, or measure quality beyond offline benchmarks. They lack a coherent model for managing the identities, secrets, and permissions those agents depend on. Their security and networking teams are often disconnected from AI projects happening in lines of business.

Not Falling Short—Just Not Optimized Altizer drew a clear distinction. Traditional data centers can run AI workloads, but they weren’t built for them. “We’re not falling short much, we’re just not optimizing.” The gap shows up most clearly in density. Legacy facilities were designed for roughly 300 to 400 watts per square foot. AI pushes that to 2,000 to 4,000 watts per square foot—changing not just rack design, but the logic of the entire facility. For Altizer, AI-ready infrastructure starts with fundamentals: access to water for heat rejection, significantly higher power density, and in some cases specific redundancy topologies favored by chip makers. It also requires liquid cooling loops extended to the rack and, critically, flexibility in the white space. That last point is the hardest to reconcile with traditional design. “The GPUs change… your power requirements change… your liquid cooling requirements change. The data center needs to change with it.” Buildings are static. AI is not. Rethinking Modular: From Containers to Systems “Modular” has been part of the data center vocabulary for years, but Altizer argues most of the industry is still thinking about it the wrong way. The old model centered on ISO containers. The emerging model focuses on modularizing the white space itself. “We’re not building buildings—we’re building assemblies of equipment.” Compu Dynamics is pushing toward factory-built IT modules that can be delivered and assembled on-site. A standard 5 MW block consists of 10 modules, stacked into a two-story configuration and designed for transport by trailer across the U.S. From there, scale becomes repeatable. Blocks can be placed adjacent or connected to create larger deployments, moving from 5 MW to 10 MW and beyond. The point is not just scalability; it’s repeatability and speed. Altizer ties this directly to a broader shift in how data centers are