linguistic fixes by Florian

news/2019/news-20191120-01.en.xhtml

@@ -12,8 +12,7 @@
 <p newsteaser="yes">
   Router Freedom is the right of customers of any Internet Service
   Provider (ISP) to choose and use a private modem and router instead
-  of a router that the ISP forces them to use. BEREC, the European
-  regulators, drafted guidelines for national agencies how to deal with
+  of a router that the ISP forces them to use. The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) drafted guidelines for national agencies how to deal with
   Router Freedom in their countries. The Free Software Foundation
   Europe (FSFE) provided mixed feedback to an ongoing public
   consulation.
@@ -22,11 +21,11 @@
 <p>
   The status of <a href="/activities/routers">Router Freedom</a> in
   Europe differs from country to country as the <a
-  href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/CompulsoryRouters/#Router_Freedom_in_Europe">FSFE's
-  monitoring</a> shows. The core of the debate is the question of the
-  location of the Network Termination Point (NTP). This defines where
-  the network of the ISP ends and where the one of the user begins. If
-  the modem and router belongs to the ISP's premises, user cannot take
+  href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/CompulsoryRouters/#Router_Freedom_in_Europe">monitoring
+  by the FSFE</a> shows. The core of the debate is the question of
+  where the Network Termination Point (NTP) is located. This defines where
+  the network of the ISP ends and where the network of the user begins. If
+  the modem and router are considered part of the ISP's infrastructure, a user cannot claim
   sovereignty of their communication and security.
 </p>
 
@@ -38,8 +37,8 @@
   in a harmonised way. <a
   href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/routers/8821-draft-berec-guidelines-on-common-approac_0.pdf">BEREC's
   current draft of the guidelines</a> is up for public consultation
-  until 21 November 2019. We analysed this and referencing EU
-  Directives and Regulations, and provided our conclusion in a <a
+  until 21 November 2019. We analysed this draft and the EU
+  Directives and Regulations it references, and provided our conclusion in a <a
   href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/routers/20191121-BEREC-Guidelines-Consultation.pdf">brief
   document</a>.
 </p>
@@ -48,7 +47,7 @@ In short, BEREC puts three different models forward to discussion:
 <figure>
   <img
       src="/picturebase/campaigns/routers/BEREC-NTP-locations.png"
-      alt="Three options shared by BEREC for the NTP's location"/>
+      alt="Three options shared by BEREC for the location of the NTP"/>
   <figcaption>
     The three discussed options for the location of the NTP. Source: BEREC
   </figcaption>
@@ -57,7 +56,7 @@ In short, BEREC puts three different models forward to discussion:
 <ol>
   <li>
     The network termination point is at location A. This means that
-    routers and modems are in the user's control who can decide which
+    routers and modems are under the user's control, who can decide which
     device to use – either the one recommended and provided by the ISP
     or one by a third party. That would result in Router Freedom.
   </li>
@@ -68,15 +67,15 @@ In short, BEREC puts three different models forward to discussion:
   </li>
   <li>
     The NTP is at C. That's the most restrictive option as it results
-    in the modem and router or a combined device being under the
-    control of the ISP solely.
+    in the modem and router or a combined device being solely under the
+    control of the ISP.
   </li>
 </ol>
 
 <p>
-  Logically, we argued in favour of making point A the network
+  Understandably, we argued in favour of making point A the network
   termination point to establish and protect freedom of choice, privacy
-  and data protection, fair competition of device manufacturers, and
+  and data protection, fair competition of device manufacturers, as well as
   security. Furthermore, we made a few suggestions to improve the
   guidelines and their implementation by the National Regulatory
   Agencies:
@@ -85,7 +84,7 @@ In short, BEREC puts three different models forward to discussion:
 <ul>
   <li>
     In this draft, the guidelines carefully weigh up the different
-    possible locations for the NTP. Instead, it is clear from the
+    possible locations for the NTP. However, it is clear from the
     arguments that only point A makes sense from a perspective of
     customers and businesses, and that no serious technological reasons
     speak against it. BEREC should take a more firm stand on this and
@@ -95,9 +94,9 @@ In short, BEREC puts three different models forward to discussion:
   <li>
     There is a whole section discussing the impact of the different NTP
     locations on ISPs and network operators, but users' necessities are
-    only found inbetween the lines, although a EU Directive from 2008
+    only implied, although a EU Directive from 2008
     and a EU Regulation from 2015 clearly state that customers have to
-    be able to enjoy Router Freedom. We ask BEREC to elaborate the
+    have Router Freedom. We ask BEREC to elaborate the
     different options also more prominently from the perspective of
     technology users.
   </li>
@@ -122,7 +121,7 @@ In short, BEREC puts three different models forward to discussion:
   have created an <a
   href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/CompulsoryRouters/">activity
   package</a> with more background information, experience reports of
-  how the FSFE managed to change the situation by 180° in Germany, and
+  how the FSFE managed to turn the situation around in Germany, and
   other tips and tricks.
 </p>