er base; the second carrier will capture 25 percent of the base; and all other carriers share the remaining 25 percent of the base. If you look at a hypothetical second carrier, it will have access to one broadband cus- tomer per building in 2002, two customers in 2003 and 2004, and three cus- tomers in 2005 and 2006. Notice that in our derivation, one customer proxies for the equivalent of $4,500 of revenue per month. We could have derived a higher number of customers assuming a lower per-order revenue. However, the revenue per building, which ultimately is the true measure of interest because it dictates and/or drives the architectural design and the cost of the equipment that can justifiably be deployed in a building, would be identical in either case. Some anecdotal information is already emerging from customers and the real-estate industry that some companies may be looking to move and/or construct low-rise buildings. This would only reinforce the point made that the number of broadband customers per building may be/become relatively Advances and Opportunities in Next-Generation SONET low, rather than as high as some people in the ELEC industry are claiming (refer to Table 1-10). This anecdotal information also reinforces the point that besides other key figures of merit, the equipment cost per building must be low; consequently, low(er)-end technology such as next-generation SONET may be better suited in the future for the metro access/metro core than the more expensive DWDM. ELEC's chapter 11 events of the recent past validate the analysis previ- ously provided. Appendix A ELECs with Internet-only service over an Ethernet platform are valuated at 1.5 times the annual forward revenue. This appendix documents how value was established (circa 2001) for an ELEC with Internet-only services, basically an ISP on an Ethernet MAN infrastructure, at approximately value = 1.5Xannual revenue Typically, such ELECs offer 100-Mbps or 1-Gbps access to the Internet for $1,000 or $1,500, respectively. The analysis is based 