# Lose a provider. Keep the file.

> Cut one off and the file still comes back. Demonstrable in a call, not a clause in a contract.

Source: https://dataprism.co/use-cases/cloud-independence

## The problem

Everyone tells you data sovereignty without migration is impossible: that to control your data you must leave AWS, GCP, Azure or your on-prem storage behind. So it gets costed, weighed against the roadmap, and shelved. The dependence deepens.

You feel it at the edges. A renewal you cannot refuse, an outage you can only wait out, terms you did not write, and a provider that can read what you store. Multi-cloud was supposed to help, but a second readable copy only doubles who can read it.

## Keep your providers. Withdraw their power.

Data is encrypted client side and fragmented with built-in redundancy, so what any single provider holds is ciphertext it cannot decrypt. Providers become interchangeable capacity: you can add one, drop one, or wait out an outage, and your data survives up to the redundancy threshold you choose. Dependence becomes something you configure.

The product page shows how data is fragmented across independent providers, and the security architecture overview covers what happens if a provider fails.

## What changes

- No single provider can read your data, and no single outage can take it down.
- You set how many providers can fail before a file stops coming back.
- A provider that drops you does not cut your access.