I understand that, but the same principle is at issue; CALEA required carriers modify existing systems or install new hardware and software to facilitate electronic surveillance by law enforcement agencies, and then such provisions were later used for warrantless surveillance by the NSA. Even though these companies are providing a service and not a physical device or user-owned software application, they were still compelled to perform original work in order to accommodate government surveillance mechanisms. I think the original presumption is that this fell under the agreement to use FCC-licensed frequency spectrums and could be levied as a requirement “in the public interest”, but it was later applied to monitoring Internet data traffic such as e-mail and VoIP signals which are transmitted over privately owned Internet backbones that are not a use of regulated spectrum or other public resources. This would seem to weigh against the argument that a hardware provider could not be compelled to perform new art to comply with the government’s request for access provided it is technically feasible to do so.
Stranger