New free trade treaty between Mexico, Canada and U.S. backstops digital business safeguards

by Steve Blum • ,


The text hasn’t been published yet, but statements from people involved indicate that online liability protections were included in the final version of a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico (a draft version is here). Those protections are said to closely follow the language in a 1996 law passed by the U.S. congress that puts responsibility for online content on whoever posts it online, rather than the operator of the platform or server that hosts it. An earlier draft of the treaty certainly does that.

Baking it into a major international treaty means it’ll be difficult, if not impossible, to change this U.S. law, as many in Washington D.C. want to do.

That 1996 law – section 230 of what’s called the communications decency act – says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”. At the time, the thinking was that companies that rent out web servers shouldn’t be responsible for policing information that their customers upload. Under the law, they could also take action if they thought third party content was objectionable, without incurring liability.

That protection from civil lawsuits now extends to social media platforms, like Facebook, and content aggregators like Google. Which upsets people in both the democratic and republican parties who want to regulate Internet content because someone else’s version of The Story gets noticed instead of their version of The Story. They can’t do that directly – the first amendment to the U.S. constitution is unmistakably clear on that point – but unleashing the predatory bar can achieve the same end, with an added cash bonus – contingency fee lawyers write big checks to lawmakers.

As the Electronic Freedom Foundation observes, the U.S. has those protections and other countries don’t. And the U.S. is home to the world’s major online companies, and other countries aren’t (those operating behind the Great Fire Wall of China aside). Assuming the new North American trade agreement is ratified, the odds that we’ll continue to enjoy that freedom, and that it’ll be extended to our neighbors, just got a lot better.

February oral arguments set for appeal of FCC pole ownership preemption

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Los angeles streetlight cell 1 23oct2019

We might know by next summer if local governments will be able to lease public property, such as street lights, at fair market rates to private wireless companies, or whether those rates will be capped at $270 per pole per year.

The challenge by cities and counties to the Federal Communications Commission’s preemption of local ownership of public assets in the public right of way, and control of the public right of way itself, will be heard in Pasadena in February. The San Francisco-based ninth circuit court of appeals scheduled oral arguments for 10 February 2020. The judge-shopping appeals filed by mobile carriers will be heard at the same time.

It should be possible to watch the arguments live via the ninth circuit’s website or watch a recording later.

There’s no particular deadline for a decision by the ninth circuit, but three to six months would be a reasonable guess. So maybe in the May to August time frame?

The ninth circuit is allowing a total of eighty minutes for arguments. Cities and counties will get 20 minutes to make their case. Often, allocated time is eaten up by questions from the judges. The FCC will have 20 minutes to defend its ruling, then mobile carriers get their turn and the FCC has another 20 minutes to respond.

One question that won’t be answered until shortly before the hearing is who is hearing it? The ninth circuit will choose a panel of three appellate judges, which might include some on temporary duty, to listen to arguments and decide the case among themselves. Usually, that ends up being the final decision, although appeals the losing side can ask that it be reviewed by all the judges assigned to the ninth circuit, and/or appeal to the federal supreme court. But historically, fewer than 1% of the ninth circuit’s rulings are taken up by the supreme court.

Political dreams, not business sense drive plan for public takeover of PG&E

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Glinda the good witch

It’s not a co-op, despite being “customer owned”. It’s not a utility district or a municipal utility, despite operating “as though it were a public agency”. And it’s certainly not a profit making company. Which leaves wide open the question of what kind of organisational beast San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo and 113 other northern California elected officials think will take over Pacific Gas and Electric’s operations and assets.

The group released a set of “operating principles” for a new, quasi-public entity that would replace PG&E. Key details are missing, including where the money is coming from – bankruptcy judges aren’t in the habit of giving something away for free when others are willing to pay for it – and whether they want PG&E’s natural gas business too.

It’s an all things to all people proposition. Somehow, this new utility will have oversight responsibility for community choice aggregators, which are local governmental agencies – joint powers authorities – that buy electricity and manage customers, via PG&E, in some California cities and counties. But it will have “‘private’ entity legal status” as a “customer-owned utility”. Which makes it sound like a traditional electric cooperative, except that “excess revenues will be re-invested into the communities” it serves, and not rebated to the customers who own it, as co-ops do.

The group’s manifesto includes a long wish list of other goodies the new utility will bestow upon people and public agencies in PG&E’s service territory, such as prioritising capital investment to “prevent wildfires, reduce public safety power shutoff events, and improve overall system reliability”, and “maintaining and growing a skilled workforce” that will improve safety and reliability, as well as customer service. They seem think it’s possible to do all that, while improving “affordability” and offering “options to reduce costs for all ratepayers”.

That would be a neat trick. But it’s only possible to make those kinds of promises when the only cost involved is the price of a press release. Public ownership of monopoly utilities is worth considering, but it’ll only work if the owners – tax payers – are willing to back it financially and if the people running it focus on the tough business of delivering service.

DISH might build out 5G in rural California, but don’t bet the ranch

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Dish neponset

DISH won’t have to build its own 5G network everywhere in California, or even in every county, if the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is approved. Jeff Blum, DISH’s chief Washington, D.C. staff lobbyist, testified at a California Public Utilities Commission hearing on Friday. He ducked and dodged questions about DISH’s exact intentions for the California assets and people that T-Mobile would spin off, under an antitrust settlement reached with the federal justice department, saying plans were still being made, data was still being analysed, decisions were in the hands of other companies and, well, so on.

Topic number one for the hearing was “does the agreement with DISH substantially alleviate any competitive harms of the proposed merger?” In the long run, the answer depends on whether DISH invests enough money – it says $10 billion, others say a lot more – to build a 5G mobile broadband network that will directly compete with those operated by AT&T, Verizon and the combined T-Mobile/Sprint. But DISH’s network won’t have to completely cover California.

An important bit of jargon is “partial economic area” (PEA). The Federal Communications Commission sliced up states and territories into 416 PEAs that represent regional markets. It assigns some mobile broadband spectrum, including the frequencies in the 600 MHz range purchased by DISH, on a PEA by PEA basis. Assuming the merger goes through as is, DISH has until 2025 to build sufficient infrastructure to reach 75% of the population in each of those PEAs.

When pressed about DISH’s plans for rural California, Blum first said that DISH would have to serve all of the state’s 58 counties, or it would face billion dollar fines and/or forfeitures. But further cross examination showed that to be false. He clarified that DISH has 600 MHz spectrum in PEAs that cover all California counties, but its build out obligation is on a PEA, not county, level. Which gives DISH two options for walking away from any given California county or rural community.

First, PEAs typically encompass several counties and cross state lines, as the map below illustrates. One county that got particular attention during Blum’s cross examination – because T-Mobile made a big deal of it – is Kings, in the San Joaquin Valley. It shares a PEA with Fresno, Tulare and Madera counties. DISH could ignore Kings and Madera counties completely, along with a few low income Fresno and Tulare communities, and still easily meet its 75% population coverage requirement.

Del Norte County is in an even more precarious position. It’s the sole California county in a PEA that includes six Oregon counties and it’s home to only 3% of the total population.

There are other examples. If you want to run the numbers, my spreadsheet is here.

Second, DISH could redline an entire PEA if serving it isn’t sufficiently profitable. “If we fail to build in one PEA then we lose that PEA”, Blum said.

Right. Losing responsibility for a service area that you don’t want to serve is a blessing, not a mortal blow.

Blum also outlined a third option: DISH could, in effect, lease frequencies to small local wireless operators. In “a very, very rural area, for example…we see an opportunity to partner with them”, he said. In other words, they’ve thought this through.

DISH’s plans, or lack thereof, for serving rural communities might not matter. Its worth as a competitive counterweight in the mobile broadband marketplace will be determined in urban counties. It would be replacing Sprint, which doesn’t provide credible rural service in California anyway and whose competitive value comes from the heat it generates in urban and suburban communities with denser and richer populations.

Going by the current schedule for the CPUC’s review of the T-Mobile/Sprint/DISH ménage, the next step is for the companies and opponents of the deal to file their arguments one way or the other. Assuming no surprises, that’ll happen on 20 December 2019, which will set the stage for a final CPUC vote as early as February.

Links to the stack of arguments and exhibits everyone has filed are here.

Jeff Blum is not my dad. My dad was Geoff Blum. My clients include California cities who do business with T-Mobile. I like to think that has no bearing on my commentary, but I like to think I’m good looking too. My dad was amused by that. Take it for what it’s worth.

CPUC approves $12 million subsidy for six broadband infrastructure projects

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Six of the eleven broadband infrastructure projects on the California Public Utilities Commission’s agenda yesterday were approved for subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). The other five were bumped to the CPUC’s next meeting, on 19 December 2019. Links to the most current resolutions are below.

Cruzio’s Equal Access Santa Cruz project was approved, without changes, for a $2.4 million grant. The commission rejected an attempt by Charter Communications to re-litigate its earlier and unsuccessful attempt to kill it. In doing so, commissioners reiterated that incumbent broadband service providers get one, and only one, opportunity to block proposed projects…

Staff also agrees with [the Central Coast Broadband Consortium] and rejects Charter’s request to remove a census block from the project area because Staff has already made a determination on the challenge. [CPUC Decision 18–12–018] set forth a clear process for challenges and Staff‘s determination of the challenge stands.

All five of the projects proposed by the Plumas Sierra Electric Cooperative (PSEC), totalling $9.7 million in grants, were approved too. The commission accepted PSEC’s field test data that demonstrated the lack of mobile broadband service in its Lake Davis project area.

Two projects proposed by Frontier Communications and three by Charter Communications are on hold. Both companies filed comments asking for more money than recommended by CPUC staff. As with the Cruzio project, Charter attempted to re-litigate its opposition to Frontier’s project plans in the Taft area of Kern County. It also objected to pricing obligations that CASF rules would normally impose on the projects that it proposed. It’s not surprising that it’s taking a couple extra weeks to get to a decision on those five projects.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium assisted Cruzio with its Equal Access Santa Cruz grant application, and I was a part of that effort. I’m not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

CASF broadband infrastructure grant resolutions, as approved 5 December 2019:
Cruzio – Equal Access Santa Cruz
Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile

CASF broadband infrastructure grant resolutions bumped to 19 December 2019:
Charter Communications – Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates , Silver Wheel
Frontier Communications – Northeast Project: Phase1
Frontier Communications – Taft Cluster

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

Mobile data tests count more than maps, as CPUC votes on broadband subsidies for northeastern California

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Plumas eureka

A sharp-eyed reader of this humble blog spotted a gap in my collection of comments on the draft resolutions up for a vote tomorrow. H/T to David Espinosa, the manager of the Upstate and Northeast California broadband consortia, who sent me Plumas-Sierra Electric Co-op’s (PSEC) response to both the draft resolutions for its five proposed projects in Plumas and Lassen counties and the objections raised by the CPUC’s public advocates office. Links are below.

Short version: mobile broadband tests showing zero coverage trumped map models; PSEC added a low-income service plan and CPUC staff recommended extra funding as a result.

The big issue is whether or not one of PSEC’s projects – a proposal to serve 125 homes in the Lake Davis area of Plumas County – is located in an area that has no broadband service at all, other than satellite or dial-up. According to the CPUC’s published map, mobile broadband service is available there, so the project was deemed ineligible for bonus money. In its comments, PSEC provided test data that shows zero broadband availability from any of the four major mobile carriers. The discrepancy might be due to the time of year the CPUC took measurements. As PSEC pointed out

Foliage and tree canopy attenuates radio waves, causing signal degradation, particularly in rural forested areas; especially in fall and winter seasons. Topography also impacts mobile coverage. This Project is in rough terrain with dense tree coverage, resulting in less than adequate mobile coverage.

Based on the Broadband Map, the latest mobile coverage testing was carried out in 2017. It is likely that mobile testing was carried out by CPUC when weather was benign. However, deep in fall and winter seasons actual coverage and speed levels can be significantly less due to weather precipitations and winds.

CPUC staff accepted PSEC’s test data, and the draft resolution was revised, with the extra funding for completely unserved areas added back in.

The PAO objected to the price of PSEC’s proposed plan for low income residents, which also resulted in a lower subsidy amount. PSEC’s answer was to say okay, $15 a month it is. The subsidy bonus that goes along with low income service offerings was added back into the draft resolution.

I’m not a disinterested commentator, so take it for what it’s worth. I provided very minor assistance to Dr. Espinosa, who did the heavy lifting on the response to the original draft Lake Davis resolution. Congratulations to him and the team at PSEC on well-played applications for five needed projects.

Revised draft resolutions, 4 December 2019:
Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile
Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Plumas Sierra – Lake Davis Mid-Mile/Last Mile, 20 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Eureka Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 21 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 22 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – reply comments on the Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 27 November 2019

Plumas Sierra Electric Co-op – reply comments on the Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 27 November 2019

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

Approval of T-Mobile/Sprint deal could depend on DISH’s testimony at CPUC hearing

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Tmobile san francisco 18may2019

Executives from T-Mobile, Sprint and, particularly, DISH will be cross examined tomorrow morning, as two days of hearings kick off at the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco. Witnesses from the CPUC’s public advocates office will also be on the stand. They’ll all have to explain written testimony they submitted about the wonderfulness, or lack thereof, of T-Mobile’s proposed takeover of Sprint, and asset and people spinoff to DISH.

It’s DISH’s intended role as a new, nationwide mobile telecoms competitor that’s likely to get the sharpest attention. Only one DISH representative will attend, chief D.C. staff lobbyist Jeff Blum. So far, he hasn’t been very forthcoming about DISH’s plan for California, and the CPUC administrative law judge managing the merger review, Karl Bemesderfer, indicated he will drill down on it. During a pre-hearing conference call, Bemesderfer said “I want to hear how DISH is going to do what it says it’s going to do”.

The initial line-up, which could change, has T-Mobile’s executives and a hired economist testifying tomorrow, as well as PAO staff and its hired economist. Blum is due to take the stand on Friday.

Meanwhile, Sprint’s Lifeline billing problem just got a little bit bigger. According to a Wall Street Journal story, Sprint was getting subsidies from the Federal Communications Commission and, presumably, the California Public Utilities Commission for low income customers who weren’t really customers. Weren’t even alive.

As the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society thumbnail of the WSJ story puts it…

Sprint also made mistakes in tallying how many subscribers were using their Lifeline service in 2013 and 2014. Because of an error in how it counted usage at the time, spam texts could keep dormant accounts live and allow Sprint to continue to collect subsidies for those customers, the documents show. In one case, the phone of an Oregon woman who died months earlier was still deemed active.

Living and dead, Sprint was collecting on at least 4,600 dormant customers just in Oregon.

My clients include California cities who do business with T-Mobile. I like to think that has no bearing on my commentary. Take it for what it’s worth.

California broadband subsidies set for CPUC vote, as Charter attempts last minute hit (but not on its own grants)

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

As of last night, all 11 broadband infrastructure projects tentatively approved for subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) are slated for a final vote by the California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday. Arguments for and against the projects and grant conditions as drafted have also been filed. Links to (I think) all of the comments are below.

Frontier Communications made pitches for full funding of their projects as proposed, which were seconded by the California Emerging Technology Fund. Charter Communications made a similar plea, then went on to complain about two other projects – Frontier’s proposal for the Taft area of Kern County and Cruzio’s application for money to extend fiber to the premise service to several low income mobile home communities in Santa Cruz County.

Last June, Charter filed objections to both projects, claiming it already offered broadband service to the specific areas of the communities for which Cruzio and Frontier sought CASF subsidies. CPUC staff upheld some of Charter’s challenges and denied others. The new CASF rules adopted by the commission last year established a quick and transparent process for reviewing objections made by incumbents, which fixed a serious flaw in the CASF program – incumbents were allowed to endlessly challenge proposed projects that threatened their monopoly business models, right up to the eve of a commission vote.

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium responded to Charter’s intransigence (full disclosure: I drafted and submitted those comments) by pointing out that allowing perpetual litigation would lead to failure…

Applicants must spend time and money, often amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, to prepare and process CASF infrastructure grant proposals. When faced with this significant expense, applicants must weigh it against the probability of success. Previously, the unlimited challenge opportunities afforded incumbent service providers acted as a significant barrier to independent project development. The experience of project applicants who hazarded this process convinced some to never attempt it again. After witnessing these travails, other independent service providers refused to participate in the program.

[The CPUC’s reboot of the CASF program] was wisely crafted to prevent de facto discrimination against independent service providers because their participation in the CASF program is essential to achievement of the program’s goals. Contravening [this decision] by allowing Charter to re-litigate its opposition to the Equal Access Santa Cruz project would, in turn, contravene the Commission’s responsibility to achieve those goals, as required by [California law].

We submitted largely identical comments regarding Frontier’s Taft project.

The CPUC’s public advocates office also weighed in, particularly concerning whether companies receiving grants should be required to offer low income customers affordable broadband rates and whether rules regarding price commitments for all subscribers should be followed – they’re in favor of both.

The next step is for staff to consider all the comments and replies, and make any changes to the proposed grants that seem necessary. The revised draft resolutions should be posted in the next couple of days, although it’s also possible that the commission’s vote could be bumped to a later meeting.

Charter Communications comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates, Silver Wheel projects, 21 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates , Silver Wheel projects, 21 November 2019
Charter Communications – reply comments on the Charter Communications Highland Orchid Drive, Country Squire Mobile Estates, Silver Wheel projects, 26 November 2019

Charter Communications – comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – reply comments on the Cruzio Equal Access Santa Cruz, project 2 December 2019

Charter Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
Frontier Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
California Emerging Technology Fund – comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 25 November 2019
Central Coast Broadband Consortium – reply comments on the Frontier Communications Taft Cluster project, 2 December 2019

Frontier Communications – comments on the Frontier Communications Northeast Project: Phase1 project, 21 November 2019
California Emerging Technology Fund – comments on the Frontier Communications Northeast Project: Phase1, project, 21 November 2019

Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Mohawk Vista Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 25 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Elysian Valley Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 25 November 2019
Public Advocates Office – comments on the Plumas Sierra – Keddie Mid-Mile/Last Mile project, 20 November 2019

All documents collected in 2019 regarding the CASF program and projects are here.

USA Today says the slowest rural broadband is in California. The truth is even worse

by Steve Blum • , , ,

San benito pole route 13apr2019

USA Today fell for a click bait post about rural broadband speeds, but at least it was click bait that made a useful point about the growing gap between rural and urban service levels.

The top line, of the USA Today article and the post on an Internet-oriented aggregator website, is that Newcastle, along Interstate 80 in Placer County, has the slowest rural broadband service in the U.S., with an average download speed of 3.7 Mbps. That figure comes from speed tests conducted on another aggregator site.

That’s bad, but it’s not close to being the bottom of barrel.

A quick look at the data I have handy – the provider service reports collected by California Public Utilities Commission and current as of 31 December 2017 – shows that out of the 1,513 incorporated cities and census designated places in California, 184 have zero broadband service according the telephone and, sometimes, cable companies that serve them. sixs others have reported download speeds – both maximum and average – of less than 3.7 Mbps.

Reported speeds are what AT&T and Frontier Communications sell you. Measured speeds – what you actually get – are less, and the maximum speed in a town is usually only available near the telco central office. Cable coverage, whether it’s big boys like Charter and Comcast, or smaller providers like Wave, is usually restricted to neighborhoods where customers and money are sufficiently dense.

Newcastle provides an excellent illustration of this discrepancy. Wave reports service levels of up to 1 gigabit there, and AT&T claims a maximum download speed of 25 Mbps, with a 19 Mbps average throughout the town. The graphic below shows AT&T’s broadband holes in Newcastle, at least the ones they own up to. There’s no way of assessing the validity of the 3.7 Mbps click bait figure, but it certainly reflects the subjective experience of residents, as the anecdotal evidence in the USA Today article shows.

So Newcastle’s broadband service is bad, but it isn’t the worst in California, let alone the entire U.S. Based on the CPUC’s data, out of 1,513 communities, Newcastle has the 518th fastest average download speed and the 584th fastest maximum download speed. It ranks even higher when only residential service is considered.

Two-thirds of Californian communities have slower download speeds than Newcastle, which USA Today says has the slowest broadband service in the U.S. That’s a problem that needs fixing.

Newcastle cpuc map 27nov2019

I’ll be crunching the next round of CPUC data, current as of 31 December 2018, in the next few weeks. We’ll see if anything has changed.

Contract for the Web addresses virtues and vices of government intervention

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Contract for the web

The “Contract for the Web” campaign published its manifesto last week, titled, naturally enough, Contract for the Web. It’s a declaration of nine principles, including “make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone”, “respect and protect people’s privacy and personal data to build online trust” and “develop technologies that support the best in humanity and challenge the worst”, which are among the tasks the contract assigns to private companies. Individuals are urged to “be creators and collaborators on the web”, “build strong communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity”, and “fight for the web”.

The Contract was written by a wide range of companies and organisations, ranging from Google to to the German government, and the effort is led by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. Even so, it’s been criticised for having no teeth. The likes of Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft have signed on to it, there’s no guarantee that they’ll pay any attention to it.

True enough. There’s more to it, though.

The Contract opens with a clear call for government enforcement, and even intervention. The first three principles state that governments will…

  1. Ensure everyone can connect to the internet.
  2. Keep all of the internet available, all of the time.
  3. Respect and protect people’s fundamental online privacy and data rights.

Simply stating that a government – any government – should do something is of little consequence. But as governments adopt the Contract, in whole or in part, over time, it’ll grow teeth. And governments and subordinate agencies are doing that.

The details of the privacy principle track with the European Union’s general data protection regulation. Tasks to “ensure everyone can connect to the internet” include measures that local governments in California have already adopted, such as “dig once” policies and pole access agreements.

Regulatory agencies are in the game, too. For example, the Contract sets the goal that “1GB of mobile data costs no more than 2% of average monthly income by 2025”. The California Public Utilities Commission is considering affordability standards for broadband and other utilities that are heading in the same direction.

Government is far from being a universally benign force in the world, though, and the Contract recognises that fact too, for example calling for requirements that…

Government demands for access to private communications and data are necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued, lawful and subject to due process, comply with international human rights norms, and do not require service providers or data processors to weaken or undermine the security of their products and services.

That’s a message that the U.S. government needs to hear.