Why Oklahoma is a market
Oklahoma is the clearest example on this site of a market that is real, checkable and almost never on a shortlist. It has two metros with working colocation, a carrier hotel with twenty five networks in it, three buildings from one national operator, and ten permitted data center sites on the public record. What it does not have is a reputation, which is most of why it is cheap.
The state is written as one page rather than as Tulsa and Oklahoma City separately, and that is a deliberate call rather than a convenience. The two cities are one hundred miles apart, they share a regulator and a power market, and the operator you are most likely to end up talking to holds buildings in both. A buyer with a requirement in Oklahoma will look at both, so the page covers both.
Power is the argument. Oklahoma has long had industrial electricity prices among the lowest in the country, a large wind fleet, and none of the transmission queue pressure that has made Northern Virginia and Dallas hard to connect. The state is also outside the seismic and hurricane exposure that shapes siting on either coast, which matters for a second site.
What this market is not is a place where a hall is waiting for you at scale. Read the announced section before you plan around new supply.
What the public record actually shows
Ten sites in this state hold a data center air permit, and the useful thing about them is who they name. Two are DXC Technology in Tulsa, one of them the Cherokee Data Center on North Lakewood Avenue. One is IBM's Tulsa business services centre at 521 South Boston Avenue. One is BP's shared service centre at 512 South Cincinnati. One is TierPoint in Oklahoma City. The rest run out to Pryor in Mayes County, Kingfisher, Roland and Webbers Falls.
That list is an enterprise and carrier market, not a hyperscale one, and it is consistent with what the interconnection register shows. It is also the one place on this page where two independent public records describe the same building: the permit reads 4121 Perimeter Pl, Oklahoma City and TierPoint's own PeeringDB entry reads 4121 Perimeter Center Pl. A permit register and a register maintained by the networks in the building agree on an address, which is the cross-confirmation this site keeps looking for.
One limit has to travel with the count. Our Oklahoma source is the federal air facility register, which lists sites that hold a permit and operate. It carries no filing dates at all, so nothing below supports a claim about recent activity, and the zero in that column is a property of the source rather than a statement about the state.
Oklahoma air permits in Tulsa, Oklahoma City and four smaller towns, naming DXC, IBM, BP and TierPoint among the operators at the permitted sites. Every figure below is a count of filings we collected ourselves, and every row links to the record it came from.
| Measure | Figure | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Filings we track | 10 | Deduplicated. One source, no dated record to no dated record |
| Distinct addresses | 10 | Separate sites in the record, not separate buildings |
| Operators we can name | None | Every filing names an engineer, a builder or a holding company |
| Filings with no date published | 10 | The source publishes the facility, not the filing date |
Collected from EPA ECHO air facility records for Oklahoma. A permit proves that construction is happening. It does not prove that space is available, and no public filing anywhere discloses what is contractible at a named building. That answer comes from an operator call, which is the part we do by hand. See how we verify capacity.
Three do. The interconnection layer is the most commercially useful thing on this page, drawn from PeeringDB, which the network operators maintain themselves, so every row links to the building's own public entry. The permit layer is here, ten sites, undated for the reason above, and every row links to its federal record. The announced layer is here and is two projects, both of which need reading carefully. The fourth is not here at all: our verified facility inventory does not extend to Oklahoma, so there is no building count on this page and no zero standing in for one. See how we verify capacity for what each collection proves.
Who is actually plugged in across Oklahoma
A building existing and a building being connected are different facts, and only one of them decides whether your traffic can get where it needs to go cheaply. These figures come from PeeringDB, which the network operators themselves maintain, so every row below links to the building's own public entry.
| Measure | Figure | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Buildings listed | 11 | Registered in PeeringDB across Oklahoma, by 9 operators |
| Buildings with a network present | 11 | Every listed building has at least one network in it |
| Network presences | 53 | Counted per building, so a carrier in three buildings counts three times |
| Internet exchange presences | 1 | Where you can reach many networks through one port instead of many cross-connects |
| Carrier presences | 5 | The physical transport choice you can buy without leaving the building |
| In the densest building | 47% | RACK59 Data Center holds 25 of the market's network presences |
The most connected buildings here
| Networks | Building | Operator | Exchanges | Carriers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | RACK59 Data Center | RACK59 Partners, LLC | 1 | 2 |
| 11 | TierPoint Tulsa-Archer | TierPoint, LLC | 0 | 1 |
| 6 | TierPoint Tulsa-State Farm | TierPoint, LLC | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | Lumen Tulsa 1 | Lumen Technologies Inc | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | OneNet OSU Tulsa | Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | TierPoint Oklahoma City | TierPoint, LLC | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | Jackson Technical Datacenter | Jackson Technical | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | Lake Region Technology & Communications | Lake Region Technology & Communications | 0 | 0 |
From PeeringDB, which is maintained by the network operators present in these buildings rather than by the landlords, which is what makes it worth more than a directory. Two limits. Entries are voluntary, so a building showing no networks may be single tenant or may simply never have registered. And a network being present says nothing about whether the building has space, power or a price for you: that is still a call.
What has been announced in Oklahoma
Announcements are not filings. Nobody has to build what they announce, the figure is the one the developer chose to publish, and the date moves. They are here because megawatts are what a requirement is measured in, and because the size of what is coming changes who will take your call. Every figure below links to a published report that states it, and was checked against at least one other independent report before it was written down.
| Capacity | Operator | Project | What was announced |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 MW | Core Scientific and CoreWeave | MSK1, Port of Muskogee | A high performance computing building at the Port of Muskogee, built by Core Scientific to host CoreWeave's Nvidia GPUs, broken ground on and stated for 2026. The split matters more than the headline: of the 100 MW, 70 MW is described as critical IT load and 30 MW as ancillary systems, so the figure a buyer should compare against another building's IT capacity is 70 rather than 100. Separately, Core Scientific has said it plans to scale the Muskogee campus to roughly 1.5 GW of gross power, or about 1.0 GW leasable, under a 500 MW hosting contract with CoreWeave. That is a corporate plan across years, not capacity anybody can take today, and it is fifteen times the building actually under construction. Do not quote the gigawatt figure as Oklahoma supply. Capacity of the building broken ground on, of which the developer states 70 MW is critical IT load and 30 MW ancillary. The campus behind it is a much larger and much less settled number, recorded in the detail rather than in this figure |
| 10 MW | Cerebras and Scale Datacenters | Oklahoma City, an 82,000 sq ft conversion | The one row on this page describing a building that is already running rather than one being built. Cerebras opened it in September 2025 with Scale Datacenters, in an 82,000 square foot facility Scale bought from the natural gas producer Expand Energy, and it is fitted for direct-to-chip liquid cooling to carry Cerebras CS-3 systems. It is small, it is single tenant, and it is not space anybody else can buy. It is here because it is the clearest evidence in the state that Oklahoma power and Oklahoma buildings are being chosen for AI workloads on their merits. Capacity of the building, which is operating rather than planned |
Read these two rows as the small, checkable end of what is happening in Oklahoma, not as the whole of it. The largest projects in this state have published dollars rather than megawatts, so they cannot be carried in a table that exists to hold capacity figures: Google has said it is behind the campus being built near Owasso in Tulsa County, has broken ground on a campus at Stillwater described at around $9 billion, and has operated at Pryor Creek in Mayes County since 2011, with cumulative Oklahoma investment reported above $15 billion. None of those has a megawatt figure we can source, so none is in the table, and the absence is a limit of what has been published rather than a judgement about the projects. What the table can tell you is the shape of the market: one 100 MW build under construction at Muskogee, one 10 MW building already operating in Oklahoma City, and a hyperscale layer whose size is real but undisclosed. Nothing here is contractible colocation space. For that, read the interconnection section below, which is where the buildings a buyer can actually place a requirement in are listed. Read the reporting.
Announced capacity is collected by hand from trade reporting and company statements, and each figure links to the report it came from. It is kept apart from the permit record above and never added to it: one is a document a jurisdiction issued, the other is a plan a company published. Neither is availability.
Ask what the building's committed utility capacity is today and what a step up to your next increment would require. Oklahoma's advantage is price and available power, so the binding constraint is usually the building rather than the grid, and the buildings here are established rather than new. Then ask which networks are lit in that specific building. Concentration in this state is high: one building in Oklahoma City holds almost half of the state's registered network presences, so "we are well connected in Oklahoma" can be true of the market and false of the room you are being shown.
Where the market actually is
Oklahoma City, and RACK59
The densest building in the state by a wide margin, carrying twenty five networks and the state's only registered internet exchange presence. It is genuine retail colocation rather than a single-tenant site. If your requirement is network led and it is in Oklahoma, it starts here.
Tulsa, and TierPoint
The other half of the market. TierPoint holds two Tulsa buildings, Archer at eleven networks and State Farm at six, with Lumen, OneNet at OSU-Tulsa, TulsaConnect and Jackson Technical alongside. Tulsa is also where the permit record is thickest, with DXC, IBM and BP all holding permitted sites downtown or just north of it.
Pryor, Muskogee and the eastern corridor
Where the scale is, and where none of it is retail. Pryor in Mayes County holds a permitted site, Muskogee is where the 100 MW build under construction sits, and Webbers Falls and Roland carry permitted sites of their own. This is wholesale and single-tenant territory, close to hydro and to the Arkansas River navigation corridor.
Stillwater and the hyperscale layer
Real, large, and undisclosed. Google has broken ground at Stillwater and is building near Owasso, and has operated at Pryor Creek since 2011. None of it publishes a megawatt figure and none of it sells colocation. It matters to a buyer only as evidence that the state's power and land are being chosen by people with the best siting teams in the industry.
When Oklahoma is right, and when it is the wrong choice
It is right when you want an interior second site, your requirement is enterprise sized, and price matters. Fifty three network presences across nine operators is a working ecosystem, two of the buildings are retail colocation with room to sell you a cabinet or a cage, and the power economics are among the best in the country. For an organisation already in Dallas or Kansas City that wants geographic separation without a four hour flight, this is a sound and materially cheaper answer.
It is the wrong choice if you need deep interconnection. Fifty three presences across the whole state is roughly what one strong building carries in Dallas, and the state has one registered exchange presence in total. If your application depends on reaching many networks cheaply in one room, Oklahoma cannot do that and Dallas can.
It is also the wrong choice if you need a large hall soon. The scale being built here is hyperscale and single tenant, the 100 MW at Muskogee is contracted to one customer, and none of it is coming to the retail market. A requirement measured in megawatts should be tested against Dallas and Kansas City first.
Ask which utility serves the building and what the rate actually is, because the state's price advantage is the reason to be here and it varies by territory. Ask for committed and energised capacity separately from design capacity. Because most of the stock is established rather than new, ask about floor loading, cooling capability and what the building can sustain per rack rather than what it is rated for. If interconnection is why you came, name the networks you need and make the operator confirm they are present in that building. And if anyone quotes you the Muskogee gigawatt plan or a Google campus as evidence of available Oklahoma capacity, ask them how many megawatts of it are contractible by you.