ICE's duty to obtain municipal permits after telecom market liberalizationDeber del ICE de solicitar permisos municipales tras apertura del mercado de telecomunicaciones

“IV.- For this Chamber, there is no doubt that telecommunications infrastructure has a relevance that exceeds the local sphere, standing as a matter that concerns the national orbit. Indeed, it is declared of public interest in Article 74 of the Law of the Regulatory Authority of Public Services, a provision that states: *“The establishment, installation, expansion, renovation, and operation of public telecommunications networks or any of their elements shall be considered an activity of public interest. (…)”*. For a better understanding of the case under study, a “telecommunications network” is understood, pursuant to mandate 6 of the LGT, as those: *“Transmission systems and other resources that permit the transmission of signals between defined termination points by means of cables, Hertzian waves, optical means, or other radioelectric means, including satellite networks, fixed terrestrial networks (circuit-switched or packet-switched, including the Internet) and mobile networks, electric power line systems used for signal transmission, networks used for sound and television broadcasting, and cable television networks, regardless of the type of information transported. (...)”* and “public telecommunications networks” as those used: *“(…) in whole or mainly, for the provision of telecommunications services available to the public.”* The foregoing is important to make clear that the infrastructure in this field (whether towers, posts, antennas, etc.) forms part of the overall concept of *“telecommunications network”*. As follows from the Political Constitution, Article 121, subsection 14, telecommunications have the character of a public good; however, they may be exploited by the Public Administration or by private parties, in accordance with the law or through a special concession granted for a limited time, under the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly. In Costa Rica, the entity that remained the historical operator in the provision of services in this area was the ICE. Authority granted by means of Law 3226 of October 28, 1963. However, technological progress gave way to the opening of that market in the case of private data networks, internet, and cellular telephony, as well as to the concurrence of new actors in the sector and its development in a competitive environment. Among the historical milestones to highlight to contextualize said opening is the CAFTA-DR. An International Treaty signed to liberalize and regulate, among the party countries, trade in goods and services. As relevant, Chapter I, initial provisions, canon 1.2, lists as an objective of that agreement: *“(…) c) to promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade zone.”* Within the framework of the CAFTA-DR, whose legal hierarchy is superior to ordinary law in the strict sense, one of the commitments undertaken by Costa Rica, through Annex 13, was to allow, on a non-discriminatory basis, service providers of telecommunications from another Party to compete effectively to supply such services to the customer through the technology of their choice. In order to establish the necessary regulatory framework to implement the aforementioned Treaty, a series of laws and regulations were approved, among which it is relevant to highlight the LGT and the LFMT, both aimed at organizing and modernizing the telecommunications sector. In the development of this legal regime, the following stand as guiding principles: universality, solidarity, user benefit, transparency, effective competition, non-discrimination, technological neutrality, optimization of scarce resources, information privacy, and environmental sustainability. As pertinent to the case at hand (subjúdice), the LGT came to establish: *“ARTICLE 1.- Object and scope of application. (…) Persons, whether physical or legal, public or private, national or foreign, that operate networks or provide telecommunications services originating, terminating, or transiting through national territory are subject to this Law and Costa Rican jurisdiction. ARTICLE 2.- Objectives of this Law. The objectives of this Law are. (…) e) To promote effective competition in the telecommunications market, as a mechanism to increase the availability of services, improve their quality, and ensure affordable prices. (…), h) To encourage investment in the telecommunications sector, through a legal framework containing mechanisms that guarantee the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, equity, legal certainty, and that do not encourage the establishment of taxes. ARTICLE 3.- Guiding principles. This Law is based on the following guiding principles: (…) f) Effective competition: establishment of adequate mechanisms so that all market operators and providers compete under equal conditions, in order to seek the greatest benefit for the inhabitants and the free exercise of Constitutional law and freedom of choice. (…), g) Non-discrimination: treatment no less favorable than that granted to any other operator, provider, or user, public or private, of a similar or equal telecommunications service. ARTICLE 4.- Scope. This Law is of public order, its provisions are inalienable, and its application is mandatory over any other contrary laws, regulations, customs, practices, uses, or contractual stipulations. For matters not provided for in this Law, the General Law of Public Administration, No. 6227, of May 2, 1978, shall apply supplementarily, as applicable.”* Regarding the LFMT, the following precepts are of interest: *“ARTICLE 1.- Object and scope of application. The entire Public Administration, both centralized and decentralized, including those belonging to the municipal regime, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, and public and private companies that develop functions or activities related to telecommunications, infocommunications, information products and services, interconnection, and other convergent services of the Telecommunications Sector, are subject to the scope of application of this Law. ARTICLE 3.- Guiding principles. Public entities of the Telecommunications Sector shall consider the guiding principles of the telecommunications legal order, defined and in force in the Sector: (…) e) Effective competition, f) Non-discrimination (…).”* With the opening of the telecommunications market (understood to mean: internet, mobile telephony, and private data networks), the operation of networks and the provision of services in this area was extended to other actors, public and private, allowing them to compete with the ICE under equal conditions. It is worth reiterating that one of the principles upon which the new regulation in this matter is based refers to effective competition, which according to the third mandate of the LGT means: *“(…) that all market operators and providers compete under equal conditions (…).”* In order to comply with that principle, the Law under discussion, in Transitory Provision III, establishes, as relevant to the case, that the Institute shall be subject to the duties, rights, and obligations set forth therein. It is important to highlight that, according to this new approach of opening and competition, the telecommunications activity (establishment, installation, expansion, renovation, operation of networks, etc.) continues to be considered of public interest (as established by mandate 74 of the Law of the Regulatory Authority of Public Services), regardless of who carries it out, be it a public institution or a private company. That is, the public declaration is defined objectively around the telecommunications activity itself, without distinctions based on who carries it out (whether the ICE or another operator or provider). The foregoing is important for the following reason. Prior to the CAFTA-DR, the ICE was authorized (as the sole operator) to build the telecommunications infrastructure that was necessary nationwide (without having to request municipal permits), being able to carry out any surface, underground, or aerial works necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes (Article 3 of the aforementioned Law 3226). Before the new regulatory scheme, which became necessary thanks to technological advances, canon 75 of the LC applied to the Institute, a provision that states: *“Public buildings, that is, buildings constructed by the Government of the Republic, do not need a Municipal license. Nor do buildings constructed by other State dependencies need one, provided they are authorized and supervised by the General Directorate of Public Works.”* Among the main arguments advanced at the constitutional level, since long ago, to justify such exemption, it was held that: “(…)* institutions that administer national interests –like the ICE– are called to collaborate with those that watch over local interests –like municipalities (municipalidades)–, and to consider their reasonable and justified proposals and initiatives; but national entities have no reason to require municipal permits for the execution of the works and projects they develop in fulfillment of their purposes. To understand it otherwise could lead to the atomization of the unitary State, constitutionally consolidated (…)”. *In this regard, see the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice no. 02806-98 of 14 hours 30 minutes on April 28, 1998. In the opinion of this Chamber, the application of the disputed provision (75 LC) in the case of the ICE must be understood as superseded in the area of telecommunications, with respect to the sectors that have been subject to commercial opening: internet, mobile telephony, and private data networks. Within a framework of reasonableness (razonabilidad) and logic, pursuant to canon 10 of the Civil Code, the historical context within which the canon in question came into force relates to an Institution as the main actor or historical operator in the provision of telecommunications services, where the evident superior interest represented by that activity, previously carried out only by the Institute, as an eminently public entity, exempted it from having to request construction permits. However, it is reiterated, upon opening the market to competition (in the terms referenced), that public interest surrounding the field of telecommunications is not limited solely to the activity developed by the ICE, but comes to be exercised by other actors (whether public or private). Thus, the ICE in the new opening scheme must be viewed as a competing company, one more operator in the telecommunications market, without being able to be endowed with privileges or preferential treatment with respect to other concessionaires, which would be incompatible with the new regulations and principles governing that sector. Both private and public operators have the right to participate in this field under equal conditions. By so understanding it, the Court finds that the appellant is not correct in the accusations it formulates; therefore, the objection must be dismissed.” **IV.-** For this Chamber, there is no doubt that infrastructure in the field of telecommunications has a relevance that exceeds the local sphere, standing as a matter that pertains to the national orbit. It is even declared to be of public interest in Article 74 of the Law of the Regulatory Authority for Public Services (Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos), a provision that establishes: *“The establishment, installation, expansion, renovation, and operation of public telecommunications networks or any of their elements is considered an activity of public interest. (...).”* For a better understanding of the case under study, “telecommunications network” is understood, pursuant to mandate 6 of the LGT, as those: *“Transmission systems and other resources that permit the conveyance of signals between defined termination points by wire, radio, optical, or other electromagnetic means, including satellite networks, fixed terrestrial networks (circuit-switched or packet-switched, including the Internet) and mobile networks, electricity cable systems used for signal transmission, networks used for radio and television broadcasting, and cable television networks, regardless of the type of information conveyed. (...)"* and “public telecommunications networks” as those used: *“(…) in their entirety or mainly, for the provision of telecommunications services available to the public.”* The foregoing is important to make clear that infrastructure in this field (be it towers, posts, antennas, etc.) forms part of the global concept of “*telecommunications network*”. As can be inferred from the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), Article 121, subsection 14, telecommunications have the character of a public good; however, they may be exploited by the Public Administration or by private parties, in accordance with the law or through a special concession granted for a limited time, subject to the conditions and stipulations established by the Legislative Assembly. In Costa Rica, the entity that remained as the historical operator in the provision of services in this matter was ICE. This competence was granted by Law 3226 of October 28, 1963. However, technological advancement gave way to the opening of that market regarding private data networks, the internet, and cellular telephony, as well as to the concurrence of new actors in the sector and its development in a competitive environment. Among the historical milestones to highlight to contextualize said opening is CAFTA-DR, an International Treaty signed to liberalize and regulate the trade of goods and services among the party countries. Of relevance here, Chapter I, initial provisions, canon 1.2, lists as an objective of that agreement: *“(…) c) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade zone.”* Within the framework of CAFTA-DR, whose legal hierarchy is superior to law in the strict sense, one of the commitments assumed by Costa Rica, through Anexo 13, was to permit, on a non-discriminatory basis, service providers of telecommunications from another Party to effectively compete to supply the customer, through the technology of their choice, such services. For the purpose of establishing the necessary regulatory framework to implement the referred Treaty, a series of laws and regulations were approved, among which it is worth highlighting the LGT and the LFMT, both aimed at organizing and modernizing the telecommunications sector. In the development of that legal regime, the following stand as guiding principles: universality, solidarity, user benefit, transparency, effective competition, non-discrimination, technological neutrality, optimization of scarce resources, information privacy, and environmental sustainability (sostenibilidad ambiental). In what concerns the case at hand (subjúdice), the LGT came to establish: “*ARTÍCULO 1.- Object and scope of application. (…) Subject to this Law and to Costa Rican jurisdiction are persons, physical or legal, public or private, national or foreign, that operate networks or provide telecommunications services that originate, terminate, or transit through the national territory. ARTÍCULO 2.- Objectives of this Law. The objectives of this Law are. (…) e) To promote effective competition in the telecommunications market, as a mechanism to increase the availability of services, improve their quality, and ensure affordable prices. (…), h) To encourage investment in the telecommunications sector, through a legal framework that contains mechanisms that guarantee the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, equity, legal certainty, and that does not encourage the establishment of tributes. ARTÍCULO 3.- Guiding principles. This Law is based on the following guiding principles: (…) f) Effective competition: establishment of adequate mechanisms so that all operators and providers in the market compete under conditions of equality, in order to procure the greatest benefit for the inhabitants and the free exercise of the Constitutional right and freedom of choice. (…), g) Non-discrimination: treatment no less favorable than that granted to any other operator, provider, or user, public or private, of a similar or identical telecommunications service. ARTÍCULO 4.- Scope. This Law is of public order, its provisions are inalienable, and its application is mandatory over any other laws, regulations, customs, practices, usages, or contractual stipulations to the contrary. For matters not provided for in this Law, the General Law of Public Administration, No. 6227, of May 2, 1978, shall govern supplementarily, insofar as it is applicable.”* Regarding the LFMT, the following precepts are of interest: “*ARTÍCULO 1.- Object and scope of application. Subject to the scope of application of this Law is the entire Public Administration, both centralized and decentralized, including those belonging to the municipal regime, the autonomous institutions, the semi-autonomous ones, and the public and private companies that carry out functions or activities related to telecommunications, infocommunications, information products and services, interconnection, and other convergent services of the Telecommunications Sector. ARTÍCULO 3.- Guiding principles. The public entities of the Telecommunications Sector shall consider the guiding principles of the legal framework of telecommunications, defined and in force in the Sector: (…) e) Effective competition, f) Non-discrimination (…).”* With the opening of the telecommunications market (understood as: internet, mobile telephony, and private data networks), the operation of networks and the provision of services in that area was extended to other actors, public and private, allowing them to compete with ICE under equal conditions. It is worth reiterating that one of the principles underpinning the new regulation in this matter refers to effective competition, which, pursuant to the third mandate of the LGT, means: “(…) *that all operators and providers in the market compete under conditions of equality (…).”* In furtherance of complying with that principle, the Law under commentary, in Transitorio III, establishes, in what concerns the case, that the Institute shall be subject to the duties, rights, and obligations set forth therein. It is important to emphasize that, according to this new approach of opening and competition, the activity of telecommunications (establishment, installation, expansion, renovation, network operation, etc.) continues to be considered of public interest (just as mandate 74 of the Law of the Regulatory Authority for Public Services establishes), regardless of who carries it out, be it a public institution or a private company. That is, the public declaration is objectively defined around the activity of telecommunications itself, without distinctions based on who carries it out (be it ICE or another operator or provider). The foregoing is important because of the following. Prior to CAFTA-DR, ICE was empowered (as the sole operator) to build the telecommunications infrastructure that was necessary at the national level (without having to request municipal permits), being able to carry out any surface, underground, or aerial work necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes (Article 3 of the cited Law 3226). Before the new regulatory scheme, which was made necessary thanks to technological advances, canon 75 of the LC was applied to the Institute, a provision that indicates: *“Public buildings, that is, buildings constructed by the Government of the Republic, do not need a Municipal license. Neither do buildings constructed by other State agencies need one, provided they are authorized and supervised by the General Directorate of Public Works.”* Among the main arguments that were put forward at the constitutional level, of old date, to justify such exemption, it was held that: “(…) *institutions that administer national interests –such as ICE– are called upon to collaborate with those that watch over local interests –such as the municipalities–, and to consider their reasonable and justified proposals and initiatives; but national entities have no reason to require municipal permits for the realization of the works and projects they carry out in fulfillment of their purposes. Understanding it otherwise could lead to the atomization of the unitary State, constitutionally consolidated (…).”* In this regard, ruling no. 02806-98 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, from 14 hours 30 minutes on April 28, 1998, can be consulted. In the opinion of this Chamber, the application of the disputed provision (75 LC) in the case of ICE must be understood as superseded in the matter of telecommunications, regarding the sectors that have been subject to commercial opening: internet, mobile telephony, and private data networks. Within a framework of reasonableness (razonabilidad) and logic, pursuant to canon 10 of the Civil Code, the historical context within which the canon in question came into force is related to an Institution as the main actor or historical operator in the provision of telecommunications services, where the evident superior interest that this activity holds—previously deployed only by the Institute, as an eminently public entity—exempted it from having to request construction permits. However, it is reiterated, upon opening the market to competition (in the terms that have been referenced), that public interest encompassing the matter of telecommunications is not constrained solely to the activity developed by ICE, but rather comes to be exercised by other actors (be they public or private). Thus, in the new opening scheme, ICE must be visualized as a competing company, one more operator in the telecommunications market, without being able to be endowed with privileges or preferential treatment with respect to other concessionaires, which would be incompatible with the new regulations and principles governing that sector. Both private and public operators have the right to participate in that sphere under equal conditions. Understanding it thus, the Court finds that the appellant lacks reason in the accusations formulated; therefore, the censure must be dismissed.”

“IV.- Para esta Sala, no cabe duda que la infraestructura en materia de telecomunicaciones tiene una relevancia que excede la esfera de lo local, erigiéndose como una cuestión que atañe a la órbita de lo nacional. Incluso, declarada de interés público en el artículo 74 de la Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, norma que establece: “Considérase una actividad de interés público el establecimiento, la instalación, la ampliación, la renovación y la operación de las redes públicas de telecomunicaciones o de cualquiera de sus elementos. (…)”. Para una mejor comprensión del caso en estudio, se entiende por “red de telecomunicaciones”, a tenor del mandato 6° de la LGT, aquellos: “Sistemas de transmisión y demás recursos que permiten la transmisión de señales entre puntos de terminación definidos mediante cables, ondas hertzianas, medios ópticos u otros medios radioeléctricos, con inclusión de las redes satelitales, redes terrestres fijas (de conmutación de circuitos o de paquetes, incluida Internet) y móviles, sistemas de tendido eléctrico, utilizadas para la transmisión de señales, redes utilizadas para la radiodifusión sonora y televisiva y redes de televisión por cable, con independencia del tipo de información transportada. (...)" y por “redes públicas de telecomunicaciones” las que se utilizan: “(…) en su totalidad o principalmente, para la prestación de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público”. Lo anterior resulta importante para dejar claro que, la infraestructura en ese campo (llámase torres, postes, antenas, etc) forma parte del concepto global de “red de telecomunicaciones”. Según se desprende de la Constitución Política, artículo 121 inciso 14, las telecomunicaciones tienen carácter de bien público, no obstante, pueden ser explotadas por la Administración Pública o por particulares, de acuerdo con la ley o mediante concesión especial otorgada por tiempo limitado, con arreglo a las condiciones y estipulaciones que establezca la Asamblea Legislativa. En Costa Rica, quien permaneció como el operador histórico en la prestación de servicios en esta materia fue el ICE. Competencia otorgada mediante Ley 3226 del 28 de octubre de 1963. Empero, el avance tecnológico dio paso a la apertura de ese mercado tratándose de redes privadas de datos, internet y telefonía celular, así como, a la concurrencia de nuevos actores en el sector y a su desarrollo en un ambiente de competencia. Dentro de los hitos históricos a resaltar para contextualizar dicha apertura, se encuentra el CAFTA-DR. Tratado Internacional suscrito para liberalizar y regular, entre los países parte, el comercio de bienes y servicios. En lo que interesa, el Capítulo I, disposiciones iniciales, canon 1.2, enlista como objetivo de ese acuerdo: “(…) c) promover condiciones de competencia leal en la zona de libre comercio”. En el marco del CAFTA-DR, cuya jerarquía jurídica es superior a la ley en sentido estricto, uno de los compromisos que asumió Costa Rica, mediante el Anexo 13, fue permitir sobre una base no discriminatoria, a los proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones de otra Parte, competir efectivamente para suministrar al cliente, a través de la tecnología de su escogencia, tales servicios. A efecto de establecer el marco regulatorio necesario para implementar el referido Tratado, se aprobaron una serie de leyes y reglamentos, dentro de los cuales interesa destacar la LGT y la LFMT, ambas tendientes a organizar y modernizar el sector de telecomunicaciones. En el desarrollo de ese régimen legal, se erigen como principios rectores: la universalidad, solidaridad, beneficio del usuario, transparencia, competencia efectiva, no discriminación, neutralidad tecnológica, optimización de los recursos escasos, privacidad de la información y sostenibilidad ambiental. En lo que al subjúdice atañe, la LGT vino a establecer: “ARTÍCULO 1.- Objeto y ámbito de aplicación. (…) Están sometidas a la presente Ley y a la jurisdicción costarricense, las personas, físicas o jurídicas, públicas o privadas, nacionales o extranjeras, que operen redes o presten servicios de telecomunicaciones que se originen, terminen o transiten por el territorio nacional. ARTÍCULO 2.- Objetivos de esta Ley. Son objetivos de esta Ley. (…) e) Promover la competencia efectiva en el mercado de las telecomunicaciones, como mecanismo para aumentar la disponibilidad de servicios, mejorar su calidad y asegurar precios asequibles. (…), h) Incentivar la inversión en el sector de las telecomunicaciones, mediante un marco jurídico que contenga mecanismos que garanticen los principios de transparencia, no discriminación, equidad, seguridad jurídica y que no fomente el establecimiento de tributos. ARTÍCULO 3.- Principios rectores. La presente Ley se sustenta en los siguientes principios rectores: (…) f) Competencia efectiva: establecimiento de mecanismos adecuados para que todos los operadores y proveedores del mercado compitan en condiciones de igualdad, a fin de procurar el mayor beneficio de los habitantes y el libre ejercicio del Derecho constitucional y la libertad de elección.(…), g) No discriminación: trato no menos favorable al otorgado a cualquier otro operador, proveedor o usuario, público o privado, de un servicio de telecomunicaciones similar o igual. ARTÍCULO 4.- Alcance. Esta Ley es de orden público, sus disposiciones son irrenunciables y es de aplicación obligatoria sobre cualesquiera otras leyes, reglamentos, costumbres, prácticas, usos o estipulaciones contractuales en contrario. Para lo no previsto en esta Ley regirá, supletoriamente, la Ley General de la Administración Pública, N.° 6227, de 2 de mayo de 1978, en lo que resulte aplicable”. Respecto a la LFMT resultan de interés los siguientes preceptos: “ARTÍCULO 1.- Objeto y ámbito de aplicación. Quedan sometidos al ámbito de aplicación de esta Ley toda la Administración Pública, tanto la centralizada como la descentralizada incluyendo a aquellas que pertenezcan a! régimen municipal, las instituciones autónomas las semiautónomas y las empresas publicas y privadas, que desarrollen funciones o actividades relacionadas con las telecomunicaciones, infocomunicaciones, productos y servicios de información, interconexión y demás servicios en convergencia del Sector Telecomunicaciones. ARTÍCULO 3.- Principios rectores. Las entidades públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones considerarán los principios rectores del ordenamiento jurídico de las telecomunicaciones, definidos y vigentes en el Sector: (…) e) Competencia efectiva, f) No discriminación (…)”. Con la apertura del mercado de telecomunicaciones (entiéndase: internet, telefonía móvil y redes de datos privados), la operación de redes y la prestación de servicios en ese ámbito se amplió a otros actores, públicos y privados, permitiéndoles competir con el ICE en igualdad de condiciones. Cabe reiterar, uno de los principios en que asienta la nueva regulación en esa materia se refiere a la competencia efectiva, lo cual a tenor del mandado tercero de la LGT significa: “(…) que todos los operadores y proveedores del mercado compitan en condiciones de igualdad (…)”. En aras de cumplir con ese principio, la Ley de comentario en el transitorio III establece, en lo que al caso interesa, que el Instituto estará sujeto a los deberes, derechos y obligaciones ahí dispuestos. Es importante destacar que, según este nuevo enfoque de apertura y competencia, la actividad de telecomunicaciones (establecimiento, instalación, ampliación, renovación, operación de redes, etc) continúa considerándose de interés público (tal y como establece el mandato 74 de la Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos), independientemente de quien la efectué, sea una institución pública o empresa privada. Es decir, la declaratoria pública está definida objetivamente en torno a la actividad de las telecomunicaciones propiamente, sin distinciones en razón de quien la lleve a cabo (sea el ICE u otro operador o proveedor). Lo anterior resulta importante por lo siguiente. Previo al CAFTA-DR, el ICE estaba facultado (como único operador) para construir la infraestructura de telecomunicaciones que fuera necesaria a nivel nacional (sin tener que solicitar permisos municipales), pudiendo efectuar toda obra de superficie, subterránea o aérea necesaria para el cumplimiento de sus fines (artículo 3° de la citada Ley 3226). Antes del nuevo esquema de regulación, que se hizo necesario gracias a los avances tecnológicos, se aplicó al Instituto el canon 75 de la LC, norma que señala: “Los edificios públicos, o sea, los edificios construidos, por el Gobierno de la República, no necesitan licencia Municipal. Tampoco la necesitan edificios construidos por otras dependencias del Estado, siempre que sea autorizados y vigilados por la Dirección General de Obras Públicas”. Entre los principales argumentos que a nivel constitucional se esgrimieron, desde vieja data, para justificar tal exoneración, se sostuvo que: “(…) las instituciones que administran intereses nacionales –como el ICE– están llamadas a colaborar con las que velan por los intereses locales –como las municipalidades–, y a considerar sus propuestas e iniciativas razonables y justificadas; pero las entidades nacionales no tienen por qué requerir permisos municipales para la realización de las obras y proyectos que desarrollen en cumplimiento de sus fines. Entenderlo de otro modo podría conducir a la atomización del Estado unitario, constitucionalmente consolidado (…)”. Al respecto puede consultarse la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia no. 02806-98 de las 14 horas 30 minutos del 28 de abril de 1998. En criterio de esta Cámara, la aplicación de la norma en disputa (75 LC) tratándose del ICE, debe entenderse superada en materia de telecomunicaciones, respecto a los sectores que han sido objeto de apertura comercial: internet, telefonía móvil y redes de datos privados. Dentro de un marco de razonabilidad y lógica, a tenor del canon 10 del Código Civil, el contexto histórico dentro del cual entró en vigencia el canon en cuestión, se relaciona a una Institución como actor principal u operador histórico en la prestación de servicios en telecomunicaciones, donde el evidente interés superior que reviste esa actividad, desplegada antes solo por el Instituto, como ente eminentemente público, lo dispensaba de tener que solicitar permisos de construcción. No obstante, se reitera, al abrirse el mercado a la competencia (en los términos que se ha hecho referencia), ese interés público que envuelve la materia de telecomunicaciones, no se constriñe únicamente a la actividad desarrollada por el ICE, sino que viene a ser ejercida por otros actores (sean públicos o privados). Así las cosas, el ICE en el nuevo esquema de apertura debe visualizarse como una empresa competidora, un operador más en el mercado de telecomunicaciones, sin que pueda dotársele de privilegios o tratos preferenciales respecto a otros concesionarios, lo que resultaría incompatible con las nuevas regulaciones y principios que rigen ese sector. Tanto operadores privados como públicos, tienen derecho a participar en ese ámbito en igualdad de condiciones. Al entenderlo así el Tribunal, no lleva razón el recurrente en las acusaciones que formula, por lo tanto, la censura deberá desestimarse.”