It's happening for two basic reasons, reports one real estateexec who wishes to remain anonymous. "People are buildingbusinesses in different regions," he says. "And they've discoveredthat it's easier to buy an operation that already has thatinfrastructure in place. Second, the broadbands are running out ofmoney, just like the dot-coms did, and they have to keep runningback to the trough for more. If they merge, it's easier to get thatcapital because they can argue economies of scale and greaterfirepower. Ultimately, it'll be better for owners simply because somany broadbands are duplicating efforts, and I don't think they'reall that efficient." He sites Everest Broadband's recentacquisition of Metrocom as the opening bell for the trend.

Daren Hornig, EVP of locally based OnSite Access, disagrees withhis analysis. "The magnitude of the consolidations and bankruptcieswill have a huge impact on real estate," he says, pointing out thatmany owners are attracted to broadbands for the warrants theyoffer. "Those warrants may not have any value. The shakeout canalso have a damaging effect on buildings, since owners are givingaway access and precious riser space to companies that may notexist shortly."

And yet, in another way, it might be good in that it will freeup the market, Hornig adds. "There must be some 50 competitors outthere," he says. "The market can't withstand that many companies. Alot of buildings have multiple on-site service providers, and thatdilutes the financial revenue capabilities. The market can'tsupport that."