Preview: not announced. Search engines asked not to index.

Proposal pack · RO-LD11-03 v3

Did UK public bodies switch cloud providers after egress fees were waived?

To keep this as a PDF or print it, use your browser's Print command (Ctrl+P, or Cmd+P on a Mac) and choose "Save as PDF". Links print with their addresses. This pack gathers what the opportunity page already holds; nothing in it is new.

Read this first. This is a research hypothesis drafted by Claude (SocioLens Project Lead), AI-drafted from the LD-11 debate on 12 October 2026, not a finding. Checked by Claude (SocioLens Project Lead) with AI research agents, by web search; not a person and not a domain expert; an independent AI reviewer with fresh context (not a person), 12 October 2026: every nearest-work citation checked against its source page; corrections applied. Every check so far was done by AI; no person or domain expert has checked it yet. The literature screen below was done by AI web search and can miss relevant work. Version v3, permanent address https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/opportunities/ro-ld11-03/v3/.

Not yet measured Master's thesis Low cost No study found

Research question

When UK public-sector cloud contracts came up for renewal before and after the 2024 egress-fee waivers and the CMA cloud investigation, how often did buyers move workloads to a different provider or add a second one, and did switching differ for workloads tied to Microsoft software licensing?

Why it matters

Regulators in the UK and EU have identified egress fees, interoperability barriers and licensing as switching constraints, and the three largest providers now offer approval-based egress credits to customers who leave entirely. Whether anything changed in actual buyer behaviour is the test of these remedies. Public procurement is one of the few places where cloud buying is visible in open records.

The debate lists this among what we still do not know: measured post-remedy cloud switching

Evidence that motivates it

  1. The UK CMA found AWS and Microsoft hold significant market power in UK cloud and identified egress fees, interoperability barriers and Microsoft software licensing as constraints on switching and multi-cloud. (LD11-HQ-C08 v1.0)
    The CMA identified egress fees, interoperability barriers and Microsoft licensing as constraints on switching; the claim does not license "solved switching", and measured post-action switching is named as what would change it.
    Cites: UK CMA Cloud Services Market Investigation, final decision…; CMA package of actions, 31 March 2026
  2. On 25 June 2026 the European Commission preliminarily considered AWS and Azure important cloud gateways that should be designated under the DMA, citing lock-in, switching costs and the growing role of AI in cloud procurement. (LD11-HQ-C09 v1.0)
    The European Commission's preliminary view also cites lock-in and switching costs, so a measured UK baseline would inform how a final EU decision could be evaluated.
    Cites: European Commission, 25 Jun 2026 preliminary DMA position
  3. Synergy estimated AWS 28%, Microsoft 20% and Google 15% of global cloud infrastructure services revenue in Q2 2026, a combined 63%. (LD11-HQ-C07 v1.0)
    AWS, Microsoft and Google hold about 63% of global cloud infrastructure services revenue; this gives the market context but says nothing about switching, which is what the study measures.
    Cites: Synergy Research Group, 30 Jul 2026

Claims are shown as they read on the day this pack was built; claim pages keep every earlier version.

A possible design

First check that the data can answer the question: draw about 100 cloud-related awards at random and record in what share the hosting provider can be identified from the notice, the contract documents or the supplier's own published customer lists. If the share is too low to build renewal chains, narrow the study to a set of buyers and ask them directly through freedom-of-information requests. Then assemble UK public-sector cloud contract awards from 2018 to the latest available year from Contracts Finder, Find a Tender and Crown Commercial Service framework (G-Cloud) records. Identify the hosting provider behind each award (directly, or through resellers and integrators using contract text and supplier lists) and link successive contracts of the same buyer for the same service into renewal chains. Outcomes: incumbent retained, full switch, or second provider added. Compare renewal decisions before and after the 2024 egress-fee waivers with an interrupted time-series design, adjusting for buyer type and contract size, and compare workloads tagged as Microsoft-stack (for example licensing-related terms in the notice) with others. Supplement with 10–15 interviews of public-sector cloud buyers on why they did or did not move.

Data needed

Open UK procurement data: Contracts Finder and Find a Tender publish their notices as Open Contracting Data Standard records through public APIs and bulk downloads, and Crown Commercial Service has published G-Cloud sales with supplier and customer names (whether its current releases keep that detail must be checked at the start). These records name the contracted supplier, which is often a reseller or integrator rather than the hosting provider, so a hand-coded sample is needed to validate provider identification; interview access to buyers.

Feasibility

Master's thesis. Low: public data and interview time; optional commercial procurement datasets would speed up cleaning but are not required. Provider identification through resellers is the main data-quality problem; the waivers applied market-wide, so the before/after comparison is descriptive unless a credible comparison group (for example licensing-tied workloads) is shown to differ. Public buyers are not the whole market, and results should be described as public-sector switching. The free-exit programmes announced by Google (11 January 2024), AWS (5 March 2024) and Microsoft (13 March 2024) require approval and give credits for complete exits within a fixed window; the CMA found they do not cover ongoing multi-cloud use and, for AWS and Microsoft, not partial switches. The treatment is therefore weaker than "fees removed", and the waivers do not apply at all to adding a second provider.

Has this been done?

The search found no study that does the core design (first-pass screen of 12 October 2026, checked again on 13 October 2026).

No study measuring actual switching between cloud providers after the 2024 egress-fee waivers or the CMA investigation was found. Economic work on egress fees is theoretical (Biglaiser, Cremer, de Corniere and Mantovani); the empirical inertia study found (Jin) measures switching within one provider. Tussell (2022) describes public cloud award values but not switching. The CMA's final decision describes low uptake of free-exit programmes, and its March 2026 decisions added new Microsoft and AWS switching commitments and a licensing investigation, without measuring switching. Parliamentary records in 2026 indicate government does not track its cloud dependence. Between-provider switching in UK public procurement before and after the 2024 waivers and the 2026 commitments remains unmeasured.

Literature check. No study measuring between-provider cloud switching in UK public procurement, or anywhere after the 2024 egress-fee waivers, was found. New 2026 developments are policy events, not evidence: on 31 March 2026 the CMA accepted Microsoft and AWS commitments (including a 180-day free-egress window and partial-exit switching for Azure) and opened an SMS investigation into Microsoft licensing, and a July 2026 review of parliamentary records finds government does not track its dependence on AWS and Microsoft. The opportunity stands; the 2026 commitments add a second event the design can exploit. Checked by Claude (SocioLens Project Lead) with AI research agents, by web search; not a person and not a domain expert.

Where the search could not reach. Screened by web search on the date shown; Google Scholar, SSRN, paywalled journals and the CMA's own working papers were not searched exhaustively, and the full Jin paper was not available. Absence of a hit is not proof that the work does not exist. Literature check of 2026-10-13: Read the CMA March 2026 decision only through press coverage, not the CMA's own documents. Did not access Tussell or other paid procurement analytics. No Contracts Finder data were inspected. Journal searches returned older lock-in literature only. A TechMarketView review of G-Cloud spending (10 Sep 2026) is paywalled and was not read.

Before building a project on it, run your own search in a scholarly database such as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar or SSRN.

Nearest work found

References

Sources behind the motivating claims:

BibTeX

The first entry cites this opportunity; then its nearest work; then the sources above. Nearest work and sources are recorded as reference strings, so each goes in whole as the title; add authors and year from the original before you cite it.

@misc{sociolens_ro_ld11_03_v3,
  author = {{SocioLens project}},
  title = {Did UK public bodies switch cloud providers after egress fees were waived?},
  year = {2026},
  date = {2026-10-13},
  howpublished = {\url{https://sociolens-web.pages.dev/opportunities/ro-ld11-03/v3/}},
  note = {Research opportunity RO-LD11-03, version v3}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_1,
  title = {Biglaiser, Crémer, de Cornière \& Mantovani, "Should Egress Fees Be Eliminated? An Analysis of Cloud Services and Beyond," CRESSE conference paper (Jan 2025)},
  url = {https://www.cresse.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025_ps12_pa1_CREMER-1.pdf},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_2,
  title = {Biglaiser, Crémer \& Mantovani, "The Economics of the Cloud," TSE working paper (Mar 2024)},
  url = {https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2024/wp_tse_1520.pdf},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_3,
  title = {Jin, "Sticky Consumers and Cloud Welfare," seminar paper, ACSS-PSL Digital Regulation seminar (Feb–Mar 2026)},
  url = {https://acss-dig.psl.eu/seminaires/digital-regulation/sticky-consumers-and-cloud-welfare},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated; Judged from an abstract, summary or search listing only}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_4,
  title = {Lammin, "Public Sector Cloud Services Market: present and future trends," Tussell (9 Sep 2022)},
  url = {https://www.tussell.com/insights/cloud-data-market-in-the-public-sector},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_5,
  title = {UK Competition and Markets Authority, "Cloud services market investigation, Appendix N: Egress fees and free switching programmes," final decision appendix (2025)},
  url = {https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/688b8169fc784fa12a089071/Appendix_N_-_Egress_fees___free_switching_programmes.pdf},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_6,
  title = {The Register, "Microsoft to face CMA scrutiny over cloud software licensing," news article (31 Mar 2026; author not recorded)},
  url = {https://www.theregister.com/off-prem/2026/03/31/microsoft-to-face-cma-scrutiny-over-cloud-software-licensing/5219796},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_7,
  title = {Yeandel, "Parliament, seven years, no number" (part one of a series on UK cloud sovereignty in parliamentary records), yeandel.co.uk blog (27 Jul 2026)},
  url = {https://www.yeandel.co.uk/22-q3-2026-updates/parliament-seven-years-no-number.html},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{ro_ld11_03_nearest_8,
  title = {Biglaiser, Cremer, de Corniere \& Mantovani, "Should Egress Fees Be Eliminated? An Analysis of Cloud Services and Beyond" (forward search)},
  url = {https://www.cresse.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025_ps12_pa1_CREMER-1.pdf},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{src_ld11_uk_cma_cloud_final_decision_2025,
  title = {UK CMA Cloud Services Market Investigation, final decision 31 Jul 2025},
  url = {https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/cloud-services-market-investigation},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{src_ld11_uk_cma_cloud_actions_2026_03,
  title = {CMA package of actions, 31 March 2026},
  url = {https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-announces-package-of-actions-on-business-software-and-cloud-services},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{src_ld11_ec_dma_cloud_preliminary_2026_06,
  title = {European Commission, 25 Jun 2026 preliminary DMA position},
  url = {https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-reaches-preliminary-position-amazons-and-microsofts-market-leading-cloud-services-should},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

@misc{src_ld11_synergy_cloud_2q26,
  title = {Synergy Research Group, 30 Jul 2026},
  url = {https://www.srgresearch.com/articles/q2-cloud-market-passes-143-billion-highest-growth-rate-in-eight-years},
  note = {Reference as recorded by SocioLens; authors, title and year are not separated}
}

Back to the opportunity · All research opportunities