Australia’s data centre sector has long been defined by a familiar formula: secure land, lock in power, obtain planning approval, and ensure fibre is somewhere nearby. But according to telecom veteran Dan Whitford, that model is no longer enough. “The equation was straightforward… that was enough to get built,” he says. “It is no longer enough to win.”
Speaking to W.Media, Whitford argues that connectivity strategy is rapidly becoming a primary driver of commercial outcomes in data centre developments – reshaping how assets are assessed, funded and ultimately valued.
From infrastructure detail to commercial lever
Whitford describes a fundamental shift in how customers, particularly hyperscalers, evaluate sites. “The question is no longer ‘Are you near fibre?’ It is ‘Can you deliver scalable and genuinely diverse connectivity on day one and beyond?’”
That shift, he says, is forcing developers and investors to rethink connectivity not as a downstream technical consideration, but as a front-end strategic decision that directly influences revenue potential, deal velocity and asset competitiveness. “Connectivity is no longer a technical detail. It affects revenue,” he says.
Whitford’s work through his newly established advisory firm, Critical Infrastructure Consulting (CIC), reflects what he is seeing in live projects across Australia: connectivity gaps are increasingly delaying deals, complicating customer negotiations, and in some cases undermining otherwise well-positioned developments.
Importantly, he says the investment community is starting to respond – but not consistently. More sophisticated capital is now asking deeper questions around route diversity, duct access and time to deliver, while others still assume fibre can be “solved later”, introducing risk late in the development cycle.
Whitford argues that connectivity is now feeding directly into how data centre assets are underwritten and valued. Where fibre strategy is robust – with proven path diversity, multiple credible carriers and clear scalability – assets are more likely to secure early customer commitments and maintain pricing power.
Where it is not, leasing risk increases, timelines extend and revenue assumptions come under pressure. “You can have the land and the power, but if the connectivity is uncertain, everything downstream becomes uncertain,” he says. In that context, connectivity is beginning to influence not just customer decisions, but investor confidence – with implications for how quickly assets stabilise and, ultimately, how they are priced in the market.
The end of “first through the door”
Historically, fibre strategy followed a relatively predictable model. “When we started acquiring and building fibre assets at Vocus…the strategy was simple. Be one of the first fibre carriers through the door,” Whitford says.
That approach, he says, relied on carriers driving early engagement and capturing a disproportionate share of connectivity revenue. “That dynamic no longer holds.”
In today’s market, hyperscale customers are increasingly dictating carrier selection and connectivity requirements, reducing the influence of both operators and traditional carrier-led strategies. “The old ‘first through the door wins’ model… is dead,” he says.
Instead, connectivity is now shaped by customer-driven architecture, with expectations around diversity, scalability and immediate availability baked into site selection from the outset.
Time to deliver replaces proximity
One of the most significant changes Whitford highlights is the shift from proximity-based thinking to delivery-based thinking. “Proximity is no longer the metric. Time to deliver is.”
While many developments still reference nearby fibre routes as a strength, Whitford argues this is often misleading. “Being near fibre is like being near a highway…if there is no access ramp, you are not moving traffic.”
That misunderstanding remains widespread. While tier-one operators are generally getting connectivity right, many newer developments continue to underestimate timelines and complexity, with “near fibre” still being confused with being ready to connect.
In practice, delivering hyperscale-grade connectivity involves more than identifying fibre in the vicinity. It requires access to the right infrastructure, in the right configuration, with clear delivery pathways. Much of Australia’s legacy fibre still runs through shared ducts, where physical path diversity is limited and visibility of routes can be incomplete following years of repairs and re-routing.
By contrast, hyperscalers are increasingly looking for deterministic infrastructure – separate duct paths, controlled access, and genuine physical diversity that can support day-one dual connectivity. These requirements also collide with practical constraints. Permitting, civil works and access negotiations can take months or longer depending on jurisdiction and infrastructure conditions.
One of the most common mistakes developers make is assuming proximity equals deliverability, without modelling how long it will actually take to build hyperscale-grade connectivity once a tenant signs.
The result is a growing risk mismatch: data centres can be built on compressed timelines, while fibre delivery lags behind. “A new data centre can open its doors with no meaningful connectivity available on Day 1,” he says. “That is commercially unacceptable in today’s environment.”
Connectivity as a valuation driver
Whitford argues that connectivity is now directly influencing how assets are perceived by both customers and investors. “If multiple credible carriers are already in the building with truly separate paths, hyperscalers take you seriously. If not, you are competing with one hand tied behind your back.”
Beyond simple access, he points to deeper structural considerations such as route diversity, duct ownership or control, and the ability to scale capacity over time as critical differentiators. “Anything less is optimism dressed up as infrastructure.”
The commercial consequences are already emerging. Delayed onboarding is becoming more common, and in some cases connectivity constraints are weakening negotiating leverage, particularly where customers recognise there are limited viable options.
These factors, he says, are increasingly shaping commercial outcomes, from customer acquisition timelines to long-term revenue potential. “Power absolutely enables the asset, but connectivity determines how quickly and how effectively it performs.”
Network position, not just location
The implications extend beyond fibre routes themselves to broader network positioning. “The competitive question is no longer ‘Where is the land?’ It is ‘Where does this site sit within the network?’”
Being west of a CBD or near an airport may still matter, but geography alone no longer determines competitiveness. What matters is how efficiently a site connects into the infrastructure that drives demand.
“Can it reach major interconnection hubs such as Equinix or NextDC facilities without excessive backhaul? Can it plug directly into hyperscale on-ramps or dense peering fabrics such as NextDC’s AXON or Equinix’s global platforms? How efficiently can it access subsea cable systems or existing hyperscale clusters?” he says.
Whitford argues these questions are now central to how sophisticated customers evaluate sites, as network position directly impacts latency, cost to serve and long-term scalability. “Network position now affects commercial outcomes…it strengthens the value proposition to sophisticated customers.”
A gap in planning
Whitford’s move into advisory reflects what he sees as a persistent gap between how connectivity is presented in early-stage planning and what is required in practice. Too often, he suggests, telecommunications assessments remain high-level, focusing on the presence of nearby fibre rather than the quality, structure and deliverability of that connectivity. In a market where multiple projects are competing for a limited pool of hyperscale demand, that distinction is becoming increasingly material.
For Whitford, the broader message is clear: connectivity has moved from a compliance requirement to a competitive differentiator. “You can secure land, contract power and obtain approval,” he says. “But if meaningful connectivity is not deliverable when the doors open, you are not in the game.”
As AI-driven demand continues to compress timelines and increase technical requirements, he argues that fibre strategy will play a growing role in determining which developments succeed – and which fall behind. “Power gets you built,” he says. “Fibre determines if you win.”