SUTEL's Powers and Mobile Device HomologationCompetencias de SUTEL y homologación de terminales móviles

“IV. On the powers of SUTEL and the role of safeguarding the telecommunications service. By Article 41, subsection j) of Law No. 8660 of August 8, 2008, Chapter XI was added to the Law of the Regulatory Authority for Public Services, No. 7593, to include, through an amendment to articles 59 through 81, the creation of SUTEL. It is a maximum deconcentration body (órgano de desconcentración máxima) attached to ARESEP, with instrumental legal personality to administer the National Telecommunications Fund (Fondo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones) (art. 59). From that standpoint, it constitutes the governing body in the field of telecommunications, as a result of which, pursuant to article 60 of Law No. 7593, it holds the following obligations derived from its authority of sovereignty: "The fundamental obligations of Sutel are: a) To apply the legal framework of telecommunications, for which it shall act in accordance with the policies of the Sector, the provisions of the National Telecommunications Development Plan, the General Telecommunications Law, the provisions established in this Law, and any other applicable legal and regulatory provisions. b) To administer the National Telecommunications Fund and guarantee compliance with the universal access and service obligations imposed on network operators and telecommunications service providers. c) To promote the diversity of telecommunications services and the introduction of new technologies. d) To guarantee and protect the rights of telecommunications users. e) To ensure compliance with the duties and rights of network operators and telecommunications service providers. f) To ensure, in an objective, proportional, timely, transparent, efficient, and non-discriminatory manner, access to scarce resources associated with the operation of networks and the provision of telecommunications services. g) To control and verify the efficient use of the radioelectric spectrum, radioelectric emissions, as well as the inspection, detection, identification, and elimination of harmful interference and numbering resources, in accordance with the respective plans. h) To ensure compliance with the access and interconnection obligations imposed on telecommunications network operators, as well as the interoperability of said networks. i) To establish and guarantee quality standards for networks and telecommunications services to make them more efficient and productive. j) To ensure environmental sustainability in the exploitation of networks and the provision of telecommunications services. k) To hear and sanction administrative infractions incurred by network operators and telecommunications service providers; as well as to establish the civil liability of their officials." In accordance with these powers, and in compliance with the principles imposed by the General Telecommunications Law, No. 8642, SUTEL is constituted as an entity that enters into a triangular dynamic, in which the telecommunications service operators and providers concur, whom it regulates, inspects, and controls regarding compliance with the duties and obligations associated with that condition and, furthermore, it safeguards the rights of the users of these services. This gives rise to various levels of relationships that are presented between SUTEL-operators (and providers), SUTEL-users, and the control of the relationships between operator-user, operator-operator, in order that the principles imposed by article 3 of Law No. 9462 (universality, solidarity, benefit to the user, transparency, publicity, effective competition, non-discrimination, technological neutrality, resource optimization, information privacy, and environmental sustainability) are duly satisfied. From the standpoint of the users, article 45 of the same law establishes the list of rights that are proper to them as recipients of the aforementioned services; likewise, mandates 47 and 48 of that legal body establish the procedure for handling user claims, in which it is detailed that they must file claims before the operator or provider, who must resolve them within a maximum period of 10 calendar days, with the potential for the case to be referred to SUTEL in cases of lack of response, negative or insufficient resolution. It should be noted that when the claim is well-founded, without prejudice to the pertinent sanctions, Sutel shall issue the pertinent provisions to correct the anomalies and, when legally appropriate, shall order compensation for the damages in the administrative venue. These decisions shall be binding on the involved parties, without prejudice to the possibility of their administrative challenge or judicial review in the contentious-administrative venue. This regulatory power implicitly carries the power of sanction, which is recognized under article 65 ibidem, a matter that does not merit consideration in this process.

V.- Subjects obligated concerning SUTEL's powers. Now, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is necessary to be clear about the subjects to whom SUTEL's regulations apply according to the indicated normative framework and to whom, therefore, the powers of that administrative body are extensible. In that sense, Law No. 8642 in its first article, referring to the object and scope of application, establishes in the second paragraph: "...The following are subject to this Law and to the Costa Rican jurisdiction: natural or legal persons, public or private, national or foreign, that operate networks or provide telecommunications services that originate, terminate, or transit through the national territory." From that standpoint, SUTEL's own regulations and powers are directed at the operators and providers of the telecommunications sector, whether they possess one of the enabling titles stipulated by law. Of course, these powers extend to illegitimate operators or providers, with respect to whom the corresponding corrective actions may be applied. This requires defining the content of those concepts. The law itself dedicates itself to expressing these concepts and indicates that an operator is any natural or legal person, public or private, that exploits telecommunications networks with the proper concession or authorization, which may or may not provide telecommunications services available to the public in general (art. 6, subsection 12). For its part, it defines a provider as the natural or legal person, public or private, that provides telecommunications services available to the public over a telecommunications network with the proper concession or authorization, as applicable (art. 6, subsection 16). The proper understanding of the foregoing rules allows one to conclude in advance, as a relevant aspect for this proceeding, that SUTEL's powers, to the extent that they extend solely to operators and providers of telecommunications services, do not include merchants dedicated to the sale of mobile telephones, unless those devices are traded by an operator or service provider, as part of the legal relationships they exercise based on the concession or administrative authorization granted; that is, that with the acquisition of mobile telephony services (a case that is important to this case), the delivery, lease, or purchase of a device of that nature is negotiated. However, in the cases of stores or commercial establishments dedicated to the sale of mobile telephones, without including the telephony service within that transaction, they do not fit within the concept of operator or service provider, and therefore, the regulations that SUTEL issues in that field are not directly applicable, and that body does not possess legal competence to restrict, control, or sanction that economic activity, unless an illegitimate exercise contrary to Law No. 8642 is proven, which is not the case here. It is worth specifying that the content and scope of transactions consisting of the purchase and sale of mobile devices with commercial stores that are not (legitimate) operators or providers of telecommunications services, as well as the protection of the consumer rights for those products, is a matter that, while escaping SUTEL's powers, is regulated and covered by the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, No. 7472, which establishes special and specific rules for this public purpose, as well as institutional bodies, i.e., the National Consumer Commission (Comisión Nacional del Consumidor), to which the person who considers their rights harmed when acquiring mobile telephones that do not satisfy their functionality expectations may turn.

VI.- On the homologation process for mobile terminals. However, for the purpose of concretizing and satisfying the aforementioned principles, which prevail and are imposed in the field of telecommunications, SUTEL has created a device homologation process, which guarantees to the user that the apparatus they acquire will function correctly regarding connectivity with the telecommunications network. In that sense, and under the protection of Article 73, subsection m) of Law No. 7593, as well as article 17 of the Regulation on the Regime for Protection of the End User of Telecommunications Services, and articles 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Regulation on the Provision and Quality of Services, resolution RCS-332-2013, of 11:00 a.m. on December 11, published in the official gazette La Gaceta 247 of December 23, 2013, sets and establishes the minimum conditions for mobile terminals that must be verified prior to commercialization by the operators and providers of telecommunications services, in order to ensure the correct and safe operation of the terminal equipment and determine that they comply with the necessary standards to operate on Costa Rican mobile networks, and thereby guarantee the health, safety, and economic interests of end users. Furthermore, in the same act referred to, it is indicated in the "Por tanto" number 11 which establishes: "...in the event that the OBLIGATED PARTIES commercialize, distribute, or include in their plans locked terminals, the OBLIGATED PARTIES must replace them with terminals that are unlocked and duly homologated by SUTEL without prejudice to SUTEL's right to take the corresponding sanctioning actions..." Although, by virtue of the field of application of Law No. 8642, SUTEL may require the operator of public networks or provider of telecommunications services available to the public to commercialize homologated terminals, that requirement cannot be applied, as the claimant intends, to third-party merchants who are not regulated operators or providers, without it being possible to derive from Law No. 8642 or Law No. 7593 the assignment of an express power conferred on SUTEL to regulate the sale of cellular mobile devices by those who do not have the concession or authorization to operate the telecommunications service. It is an unrestricted commercial activity, which, although subject to the normal rules of consumer law, cannot be supervised immediately and directly by the sued public entity. Viewed this way, in the present matter it has not been possible to prove that the commercial establishment called Casa Blanca is a subject regulated by SUTEL, and therefore, the claimant's argument regarding alleged omissions or inaction in the exercise of the supervision and control powers over compliance with the content of the resolutions that impose the homologation process are not admissible. Ergo, far from what the claimant affirms, the defendant Administration does not have legal competence to regulate or sanction the sale of non-homologated mobile terminals, insofar as, it is insisted, that competence is proper to the consumer relations that are governed by Law No. 7472, and therefore, it is not its role to sanction the sale of non-homologated devices by this type of establishment, regarding the quality and proper functioning of the device considered in itself. In view of this, the allegation that SUTEL incurs in omissions that promote and foster the sale of non-homologated cellular telephones finds no support, insofar as it is expressed on the basis of the claimant's alleged experience of having acquired, in a business not regulated by that body, a device that has presented operation and connectivity deficiencies. Along these lines, it should be noted that the claimant himself acknowledges that he knew and was informed at the Casa Blanca business that the telephone he was acquiring was not homologated, leaning his consumer choice based on a matter of cost (according to his statement). Likewise, he knew he was acquiring the mobile device from a commercial agent that is not a cellular network operator. From this angle of examination, the operation deficiencies he alleges the said device has had must not be resolved before SUTEL, but rather before the consumer protection bodies already referred to. It is worth noting that the Constitutional Court (Sala Constitucional) itself has referred to the matter of the homologation required by SUTEL for devices distributed, delivered, or traded by the operators or providers. In that sense, in ruling No. 2011-003089 of 8:38 a.m. on March 11, 2011, that Constitutional Court resolved an amparo appeal questioning resolution number RCS-614-2009 of the Council of the Superintendency of Telecommunications, published in the official gazette La Gaceta on January 25, 2009, called "Procedure for the Homologation of Mobile Telephony Terminals (Procedimiento para la Homologación de Terminales de Telefonía Móvil)". In that ruling on the analyzed topic, it indicated, in the relevant part: "IV.- ON THE OBLIGATION THAT AN OPERATOR OR PROVIDER HAS TO ACTIVATE ON ITS NETWORKS ONLY TERMINALS HOMOLOGATED BY THE SUPERINTENDENCY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS. As already indicated, the aforementioned homologation procedure aims to protect the health, safety, and economic interests of users, by verifying the correct and safe operation of the terminal devices or equipment that are introduced into the country with the intention of connecting to mobile telephony service networks. Which, in principle, is reasonable. On the other hand, it should be noted that said obligation with the homologation procedure is applicable to the companies that are operators or providers that subsequently obtain the homologation certificate and must send the lists of mobile equipment prior to their distribution or commercialization at the national level. A requirement that is also reasonable, when dealing with companies dedicated to that line of business, yet what is not coherent or reasonable is that if a particular user lawfully acquires a cellular telephone terminal equipment or device that does not bear the homologation label referred to in recital (considerando) X, point 6, of resolution RCS-614-2009, but the brand and model of their equipment, as well as the hardware, software, firmware, and operating system versions it contains, have already been analyzed and tested by SUTEL on previous occasions and it has already been determined that they are suitable for connecting to cellular telephony networks, they are required, by an erroneous normative interpretation, to subject their device to the entire homologation procedure developed in said resolution –so that they can thus obtain the aforementioned label and their device can be connected to the telephony network-. A situation that is currently occurring, according to the report of the Executive President of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE). In such a case, if the service provider or operator can establish with certainty the lawful origin of the device and that it corresponds to a brand, model, and software, firmware, and operating system version that has already been previously homologated by the Superintendency of Telecommunications -by virtue of a homologation request made by any other importer, distributor, provider, operator, or individual-, and if the other requirements imposed by the legal system are also met, there is no reasonable justification for the user to be denied the provision of the service, regardless of whether the device has the aforementioned label or not. Especially if the requirement to obtain the label in question is to submit the device to the referred homologation procedure. Given such a hypothesis, it can be concluded that the requirement imposed by the Superintendency of Telecommunications, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the aforementioned label to cellular telephony networks, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendency of Telecommunications, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not manage to satisfy 'strict proportionality' (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto) -as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness and which consists of determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the purpose pursued-. (...)" Highlighting is our own.

VII.- The foregoing considerations demonstrate that the homologation requirement that SUTEL has imposed is valid and applicable exclusively for operators and providers, but not for those persons (natural or legal) that have, as part of a legitimate commercial activity, the sale of this type of mobile device, without offering the public connectivity to the cellular telephony network, since for such purposes, it is insisted, they require administrative authorization granted by the aforementioned Superintendency, and in such cases, the requirement to sell homologated devices is indeed admissible and reasonable. On the other hand, in that same resolution, the Constitutional Court highlighted the illegitimacy of requiring the user, as a connectivity requirement, the exclusive use of homologated devices. Along those lines, in recital V, it states: "V.- ON THE FREE COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION GUARANTEED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL. (...) Every consumer has the right to choose, within their sphere of individual freedom, and under the respect of the minimum regulations that guarantee telecommunications services, the form and the means of freely accessing the referred goods and services. In particular, they must have an open range of possibilities to be able to choose the device that best suits them, considering the price and their personal needs, to request the connection of the service. (...) At this point, it is important to highlight what Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides, in terms of enshrining several principles and rights related to business freedom and the protection of consumer rights. With the implementation of said constitutional provision, it is intended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position that prevents effective competition. The exercise of such power can cause the capacity to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. Therefore, this Court understands that the decision to require the operators or providers of telecommunications services available to the public to only be able to activate on their networks those terminal equipment that have the respective homologation identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and homologated by the Superintendency of Telecommunications, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality –for contravening the sub-principle of 'strict proportionality' (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto)–, to the detriment of the consumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest." Hence, this Court shares the arguments of SUTEL insofar as it indicates that, in light of those considerations, the decision to acquire a homologated device or one without this condition falls exclusively upon the end user, since they are empowered to choose the equipment of their preference, however, attending to the implications of homologation, which is to establish the minimum operating conditions for terminal equipment that will connect to the networks of operators and providers of telecommunications services available to the public, they assume the consequences of the risks of their decision. From what has been stated by the Constitutional Court, it follows that the user can connect to the network a terminal that has not been previously homologated, provided that it meets the same characteristics (identical brand, model, hardware version, software, firmware, operating system, among others) as other terminals that have been homologated by SUTEL. However, it is evident that non-homologated devices that bear no similarity to one previously homologated could present operational deficiencies in terms of connectivity, potentially causing some degree of interference or damage to the quality and integrity of the network. Nevertheless, it is reiterated, the acquisition and the use of a terminal with or without homologation is a free decision of the end user. Indeed, as has been established in the list of proven facts, as a provision for this aspect, within the "Por tanto" number 7 of resolution number RCS-332-2013, agreement 015-066-2013 -referred to in the previous section-, it was ordered: "7. To indicate that when an end user wishes to activate a non-homologated mobile device, the OBLIGATED PARTIES, with the exception of those engaged in the sale and distribution of terminals, must request from the user the respective documentation or reliable and reasonable proof verifying the lawful origin of the device and verify that it has the same technical characteristics (brand, model, hardware version, software/firmware, and operating system) as equipment homologated by SUTEL. Likewise, the user must sign, prior to the activation of the services, a document stating that they waive future claims for service quality problems, in accordance with the following format: (...)." (Images 42-68 of the case file, specifically, 46-47) This provision requires the obligated parties, prior to connecting to the network a non-homologated device acquired by lawful means, to require the user to provide proof of its acquisition and to sign a waiver form for future claims, which suggests the possibility of choosing this type of mobile. It should be noted that this provision was analyzed by the Constitutional Court in ruling No. 2220-2013 of 2:30 p.m. on February 19, 2013, endorsing that form by considering that it did not harm Constitutional rights. Again, this demonstrates the possibility of acquiring non-homologated devices, which is why the claimant's assertions lack normative support […].” In this regard, it constitutes the governing body in the field of telecommunications, and as a result, in accordance with article 60 of Law No. 7593, it holds the following obligations derived from its sovereign powers: "<i>The fundamental obligations of Sutel are: a) To apply the legal framework of telecommunications, for which it shall act in accordance with the Sector's policies, the provisions of the National Telecommunications Development Plan, the General Telecommunications Law, the provisions established in this Law, and other applicable legal and regulatory provisions. b) To administer the National Telecommunications Fund and guarantee compliance with the universal access and service obligations imposed on network operators and telecommunications service providers. c) To promote the diversity of telecommunications services and the introduction of new technologies. d) To guarantee and protect the rights of telecommunications users. e) To ensure compliance with the duties and rights of network operators and telecommunications service providers. f) To ensure, in an objective, proportional, timely, transparent, efficient, and non-discriminatory manner, access to scarce resources associated with the operation of networks and the provision of telecommunications services. g) To control and verify the efficient use of the radio spectrum and radio emissions, as well as the inspection, detection, identification, and elimination of harmful interference and numbering resources, in accordance with the respective plans. h) To ensure compliance with the access and interconnection obligations imposed on telecommunications network operators, as well as the interoperability of said networks. i) To establish and guarantee quality standards for telecommunications networks and services to make them more efficient and productive. j) To ensure environmental sustainability (sostenibilidad ambiental) in the operation of networks and the provision of telecommunications services. k) To hear and sanction administrative infractions incurred by network operators and telecommunications service providers; as well as to establish the civil liability of their officials.</i>". In accordance with these powers, and attending to the principles imposed by the General Telecommunications Law, No. 8642, SUTEL is constituted as an entity that enters a triangular dynamic, in which the telecommunications service operators and providers concur, whom it regulates, supervises, and controls regarding compliance with the duties and obligations associated with that condition, and it also protects the rights of the users of these services. This gives rise to diverse levels of relationships that occur between SUTEL-operators (and providers), SUTEL-users, and the control of the relationships between operator-user, and operator-operator, so that the principles imposed by article 3 of Law No. 9462 (universality, solidarity, benefit to the user, transparency, publicity, effective competition, non-discrimination, technological neutrality, optimization of resources, information privacy, and environmental sustainability) are duly satisfied. From the users' perspective, canon 45 ejusdem establishes the list of rights that belong to them as recipients of the aforementioned services; likewise, mandates 47 and 48 of that legal body establish the procedure for handling user claims, in which it is detailed that they must file claims before the operator or provider, who must resolve them within a maximum period of 10 calendar days, with the case potentially being referred to SUTEL in cases of lack of response, or a negative or insufficient resolution. It should be noted that when the claim is well-founded, without prejudice to the pertinent sanctions, Sutel shall issue the pertinent provisions to correct the anomalies and, when legally appropriate, shall order compensation for damages and losses in the administrative venue. These decisions shall be binding for the involved parties, without detriment to the possibility of their administrative appeal or challenge in the contentious-administrative judicial venue. This regulatory power implicitly carries the power to sanction, which is recognized from article 65 ibidem, a matter that does not merit consideration in this proceeding.

**V.- Subjects obligated before SUTEL's powers.** Now then, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is necessary to have clarity regarding the subjects to whom SUTEL's regulations apply according to the indicated regulatory framework and to whom, therefore, the powers of that administrative body are extendable. In that sense, Law No. 8642, in its first article, referring to the object and scope of application, establishes in the second paragraph: "<i>...The following are subject to this Law and to Costa Rican jurisdiction: natural or legal persons, public or private, national or foreign, that operate networks or provide telecommunications services that originate, terminate, or transit through the national territory.</i>" In this regard, SUTEL's own regulations and powers are directed at the operators and providers of the telecommunications sector, whether they hold any of the enabling titles stipulated by law. Naturally, these powers extend to illegitimate operators or providers, against whom the corresponding corrective actions may be applied. This requires specifying the content of these concepts. The law itself is dedicated to expressing these concepts and indicates that the operator is any natural or legal person, public or private, that operates telecommunications networks with the proper concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización), which may or may not provide telecommunications services available to the general public (art. 6 subsection 12). For its part, it defines a provider as the natural or legal person, public or private, that provides telecommunications services available to the public over a telecommunications network with the proper concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización), as applicable (art. 6 subsection 16). The proper understanding of the foregoing rules allows one to conclude in advance, as a relevant aspect for this proceeding, that SUTEL's powers, insofar as they extend only to the operators and providers of telecommunications services, do not include merchants engaged in the sale of mobile phones, unless those devices are transacted by a service operator or provider, as part of the legal relationships they exercise based on the granted administrative concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización); that is, when, along with the acquisition of mobile phone services (a case that is important to this cause), the delivery, lease, or purchase of a device of that nature is negotiated. However, in the cases of commercial houses or establishments engaged in the sale of mobile phones, without including the phone service within that transaction, they do not fit within the concept of an operator or service provider, so the regulations that SUTEL issues in that field are not directly applicable, just as that body does not possess the legal competence to restrict, control, or sanction that economic activity, unless an illegitimate exercise contrary to Law No. 8642 is proven, which is not the case here. It is worth clarifying that the content and scope of transactions consisting of the purchase and sale of mobile devices with commercial houses that are not (legitimate) operators or providers of telecommunications services, as well as the protection of the consumer rights for those products, is a matter that, although it escapes SUTEL's powers, is regulated and covered under the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, which establishes special and specific rules for this public purpose, as well as institutional bodies, that is, the National Consumer Commission, to which a person who deems their rights violated when acquiring mobile phones that do not meet their functionality expectations may resort.

**VI.- Regarding the approval (homologación) process for mobile terminals.** Notwithstanding, for the purpose of concretizing and satisfying the principles already mentioned, which prevail and are imposed in the field of telecommunications, SUTEL has created an approval (homologación) process for devices, which guarantees the user that the device they acquire will function correctly in terms of connectivity with the telecommunications network. In this sense, and under the protection of Article 73, subsection m) of Law No. 7593, as well as article 17 of the Regulation on the Protection Regime for the End User of Telecommunications Services, and Articles 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Regulation for the Provision and Quality of Services, resolution RCS-332-2013, dated 11:00 a.m. on December 11, published in the official gazette La Gaceta 247 on December 23, 2013, sets and establishes the minimum conditions for mobile terminals that must be verified prior to commercialization by operators and providers of telecommunications services, in order to ensure the correct and safe operation of terminal equipment and determine that it meets the necessary standards to operate on Costa Rican mobile networks, and thereby guarantee the health, safety, and economic interests of end users. Indeed, in the same aforementioned act, operative clause number 11 states: "<i>...in the event that the OBLIGATED PARTIES commercialize, distribute, or include locked terminals in their plans, the OBLIGATED PARTIES must replace them with terminals that are unlocked and duly approved (homologados) by SUTEL, without prejudice to SUTEL's right to take the corresponding sanctioning actions...</i>". While it is true that, by virtue of the scope of Law No. 8642, SUTEL can require the operator of public networks or the provider of telecommunications services available to the public to commercialize approved (homologadas) terminals, this requirement cannot be applied, as the plaintiff intends, to third-party merchants who are not regulated operators or providers, without an express competence assigned to SUTEL to regulate the sale of cell phone devices by those who do not have a concession (concesión) or authorization (autorización) to operate the telecommunications service being able to be derived from Law No. 8642 or Law No. 7593. It is an unrestricted commercial activity, which, although subject to the normal rules of consumer law, cannot be supervised immediately and directly by the sued administrative body. Thus seen, in the present matter, it has not been possible to prove that the commercial establishment called Casa Blanca is a subject regulated by SUTEL; therefore, the plaintiff's allegation regarding supposed omissions or inaction in the exercise of supervisory and control powers over compliance with the content of the resolutions that impose the approval (homologación) process are not addressable. Ergo, contrary to what the plaintiff affirms, the defendant Administration does not possess the legal competence to regulate or sanction the sale of non-approved (no homologados) mobile terminals, to the extent that, it is insisted, this competence belongs to consumer relations governed by Law No. 7472; therefore, it is not its responsibility to sanction the sale of non-approved devices by this type of establishment, regarding the quality and proper functioning of the device in and of itself considered. Given this, the allegation that SUTEL incurs omissions that potentiate and foster the sale of non-approved (no homologados) cell phones lacks support, to the extent that it is expressed based on the plaintiff's supposed experience of having acquired a device in a business not regulated by that body, a device that has presented operation and connectivity deficiencies. Along these lines, it should be noted that the plaintiff himself recognizes that he knew and was informed at the Casa Blanca business that the phone he was acquiring was not approved (homologado), inclining his consumer choice based on a cost issue (according to his statement). Likewise, he knew he was acquiring the mobile device from a commercial agent that is not a cellular network operator. From this angle of examination, the operation deficiencies that the cited device allegedly has had should not be resolved before SUTEL, but before the consumer protection bodies already mentioned. It should be noted that the Constitutional Chamber itself has addressed the topic of the approval (homologación) required by SUTEL for devices distributed, delivered, or transacted by operators or providers. In this sense, in ruling No. 2011-003089 at 8:38 a.m. on March 11, 2011, that Constitutional Court resolved an amparo appeal in which resolution number RCS-614-2009 of the Council of the Superintendence of Telecommunications, published in the official gazette La Gaceta on January 25, 2009, called "<i>Procedure for the Approval of Mobile Phone Terminals (Procedimiento para la Homologación de Terminales de Telefonía Móvil)</i>", was questioned. In that judgment on the analyzed topic, it indicated, relevantly: "<b><i>IV.- ON THE OBLIGATION OF AN OPERATOR OR PROVIDER TO ACTIVATE ON THEIR NETWORKS ONLY TERMINALS APPROVED (HOMOLOGADAS) BY THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS</i></b><i> . As already indicated, the cited approval (homologación) procedure aims to protect the health, safety, and economic interests of users, by verifying the correct and safe operation of terminal devices or equipment that are introduced into the country with the intention of connecting to mobile phone service networks. Which, in principle, is reasonable. On the other hand, it must be highlighted that said obligation with the approval (homologación) procedure is applicable to operating or providing companies that subsequently obtain the approval (homologación) certificate, and must send the lists of mobile equipment prior to its distribution or commercialization at the national level. A requirement that is also reasonable when dealing with companies engaged in that commercial line, <u>what is not coherent or reasonable is that if a private user, in a lawful manner, acquires a cell phone terminal equipment or device that does not have the approval (homologación) distinctive referred to in considerando X, point 6, of resolution RCS-614-2009, but the brand and model of their equipment, as well as the hardware, software, firmware, and operating system versions it contains, have already been analyzed and tested by SUTEL on previous occasions and it has already been determined that they are suitable for connecting to cell phone networks, they are required, by an erroneous regulatory interpretation, to submit their device to the entire approval (homologación) procedure developed in said resolution –so that they can thus obtain the mentioned distinctive and thus their device can be connected to the telephone network-. </u>A situation that is currently occurring, as reported by the Executive President of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute. In such a case, if the provider or operator of the service can establish with certainty the lawful origin of the device and that it corresponds to a brand, model, and version of software, firmware, and operating system that has already been previously approved (homologados) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications –by virtue of an approval (homologación) request filed by some other importer, distributor, provider, operator, or private individual-, and if, in addition, the other requirements imposed by the legal framework are met, there is no reasonable justification for denying the user the provision of the service, regardless of whether or not the device has the cited distinctive. Especially if the requirement to obtain the distinctive in question is to submit the device to the referenced approval (homologación) procedure. Given such a hypothesis, <u>it can be concluded that the requirement imposed by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the cited distinctive to cell phone networks, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not satisfy "strict proportionality" –as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness and which consists of determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the end pursued</u>-. </i><i>(...)</i>" The highlighting is ours.

**VII.-** The foregoing considerations reveal that the approval (homologación) requirement that SUTEL has imposed is valid and applicable exclusively to operators and providers, but not for those persons (natural or legal) that have the sale of this type of mobile device as part of a legitimate commercial activity, without offering the public connectivity to the cell phone network, since for such purposes, it is insisted, they require administrative authorization (habilitación administrativa) granted by the aforementioned Superintendence, and in such cases, the requirement to sell approved (homologados) devices is demandable and reasonable. On the other hand, in that same resolution, the Constitutional Chamber highlighted the illegitimacy of requiring the user, as a connectivity requirement, the exclusive use of approved (homologados) devices. Along those lines, in considerando V, it indicates: "<b>V.- ON THE FREE COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION GUARANTEED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.</b> (...) <i>Every consumer has the right to choose, within their scope of individual freedom, and under the respect of minimum regulations that guarantee telecommunications services, the form and means of freely accessing the referenced goods and services. In particular, they must have an open range of possibilities to be able to choose the device that best suits them, considering price and their personal needs, to request service connection. (...) At this point, it is important to highlight what Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides, in that it enshrines several principles and rights related to business freedom and the protection of consumer rights. With the implementation of said constitutional provision, it is intended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position that impedes effective competition. The exercise of said power may cause the capacity to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. Therefore, this Court understands that the decision to demand from operators or providers of telecommunications services available to the public that they can only activate on their networks those terminal equipment that has the respective approval (homologación) identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality –for contravening the sub-principle of "proportionality in the strict sense"-, to the detriment of consumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest."</i> Hence, this Court agrees with SUTEL's allegations when it indicates that, under the cover of those considerations, the decision to acquire an approved (homologado) device or one without that condition pertains exclusively to the end user, since they are empowered to choose the equipment of their preference, however, considering the implications of the approval (homologación), which is to establish the minimum operating conditions for terminal equipment that will connect to the networks of operators and providers of telecommunications services available to the public, they assume the consequences of the risks of their decision. From what was stated by the Constitutional Chamber, it follows that the user can connect a terminal that has not been previously approved (homologada) to the network, provided it meets the same characteristics (identical brand, model, hardware version, software, firmware, operating system, among others) as other terminals that have been approved (homologadas) by SUTEL. However, it is evident that non-approved (no homologados) devices that have no similarity to a previously approved (homologado) one could present operating deficiencies in terms of connectivity, potentially causing some degree of interference or damage to the quality and integrity of the network. Nevertheless, it is reiterated that the acquisition and **the use of a terminal with or without approval (homologación) is a free decision of the end user.** Indeed, as established in the set of proven facts, as foresight on this aspect, within operative clause number 7 of resolution number RCS-332-2013, agreement 015-066-2013 –referenced in the previous section–, it was provided: "<i>7. To indicate that when an end user wishes to activate a non-approved (no homologado) mobile device, the OBLIGATED PARTIES, with the exception of those that sell and distribute terminals, must request from the user the respective documentation or reliable and reasonable proof that proves the lawful origin of the device and verify that it has the same technical characteristics (brand, model, hardware version, software/firmware, and operating system) as equipment approved (homologados) by SUTEL. Likewise, the user must sign, prior to the activation of services, a document stating that they waive future claims for service quality problems, in accordance with the following format: (...).</i>" (Images 42-68 of the case file, specifically, 46-47). This provision requires the obligated parties that, prior to connecting a non-approved (no homologado) device, acquired by lawful means, to the network, they require the user to provide proof of its acquisition, and to sign a boilerplate waiver of future claims, which leads to the conclusion that the possibility of choosing this type of mobile phone exists. It should be noted that this provision was analyzed by the Constitutional Chamber in ruling No. 2220-2013 at 2:30 p.m. on February 19, 2013, endorsing that boilerplate, considering that it did not violate the Rights of the Constitution.

Once again, this highlights the possibility of acquiring non-homologated devices, which is why the petitioner's assertions lack any regulatory basis […].”</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> 7593, as well as numeral 17 of the Regulation on the Regime for the Protection of the End User of Telecommunications Services, and Articles 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Regulation on Service Provision and Quality, resolution RCS-332-2013, at 11:00 a.m. on December 11, published in the official gazette La Gaceta 247 of December 23, 2013, sets and establishes the minimum conditions for mobile terminals that must be verified prior to commercialization by telecommunications service operators and providers, in order to ensure the correct and safe functioning of terminal equipment and to determine that they meet the necessary standards to operate on Costa Rican mobile networks, thereby guaranteeing the health, safety, and economic interests of end users. Indeed, in the same act referenced, operative paragraph number 11 is indicated, which establishes: <i>"...in the event that the OBLIGATED PARTIES commercialize, distribute, or include locked terminals in their plans, the OBLIGATED PARTIES must replace them with terminals that are unlocked and duly approved (homologados) by SUTEL, without prejudice to SUTEL's right to take the corresponding punitive actions...</i>". Although by virtue of the scope of Law No. 8642, SUTEL may require the operator of public networks or provider of publicly available telecommunications services to commercialize approved (homologados) terminals, that requirement cannot be applied, as the plaintiff intends, to third-party merchants that are not regulated operators or providers, without it being possible to derive from Law No. 8642 or Law No. 7593 the assignment of an express competence conferred upon SUTEL to regulate the sale of cellular mobile devices by those who do not have a concession or authorization to operate telecommunications services. This is an unrestricted commercial activity, which, although subject to the normal rules of consumer law, cannot be immediately and directly supervised by the sued entity. Seen in this light, in the present matter it has not been possible to verify that the commercial establishment named Casa Blanca is an entity regulated by SUTEL, and therefore, the plaintiff's complaint regarding alleged omissions or inaction in the exercise of supervisory and control powers over compliance with the content of resolutions that impose the approval (homologación) process is not admissible. Ergo, contrary to what the plaintiff claims, the sued Administration has no legal competence to regulate or sanction the sale of unapproved (no homologados) mobile terminals, insofar as, it is insisted, such competences are intrinsic to consumer relations governed by Law No. 7472; thus, it is not its responsibility to sanction the sale of unapproved (no homologados) devices by this type of establishment, regarding the quality and proper functioning of the device considered in itself. Given this, the allegation that SUTEL incurs in omissions that promote and encourage the sale of unapproved (no homologados) cellular phones finds no support, insofar as it is expressed based on the plaintiff's alleged experience of having acquired, in a business not regulated by that body, a device that has presented operational and connectivity deficiencies. In this vein, it is worth noting that the plaintiff himself acknowledges that he knew and was informed at the Casa Blanca business that the phone he was acquiring was not approved (homologado), directing his consumer choice based on a matter of cost (according to his statement). Likewise, he knew he was acquiring the mobile device from a commercial agent that is not a cellular network operator. From this perspective of examination, the operational deficiencies he alleges the mentioned device has had are not to be resolved before SUTEL, but rather before the consumer protection instances already referred to. It is noteworthy that the Constitutional Chamber itself has addressed the topic of approval (homologación) required by SUTEL for devices distributed, delivered, or traded by operators or providers. In that sense, in vote No. 2011-003089 at 8:38 a.m. on March 11, 2011, that Constitutional Court resolved an amparo appeal in which resolution number RCS-614-2009 of the Council of the Superintendence of Telecommunications, published in the official gazette La Gaceta of January 25, 2009, called "<i>Procedure for the Approval of Mobile Telephony Terminals</i>" was questioned. In that ruling on the analyzed topic, it indicated in the relevant part: <b>"<i>IV.- REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF AN OPERATOR OR PROVIDER TO ACTIVATE ON THEIR NETWORKS ONLY TERMINALS APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS</i></b><i> . As already indicated, the aforementioned approval (homologación) procedure aims to safeguard the health, safety, and economic interests of users, by verifying the correct and safe functioning of the terminal devices or equipment introduced into the country with the intention of connecting to mobile telephone service networks. Which, in principle, is reasonable. On the other hand, it must be noted that said obligation with the approval (homologación) procedure is applicable to operating or provider companies that subsequently obtain the approval certificate and must send the lists of mobile equipment before their distribution or commercialization nationwide. A requirement that is also reasonable, when it concerns companies dedicated to that commercial activity, <u>what is not coherent or reasonable is that if a particular user lawfully acquires a cellular telephone terminal equipment or device that does not have the approval (homologación) distinctive referred to in considerando X, point 6, of resolution RCS-614-2009, but the brand and model of their equipment, as well as the hardware, software, firmware, and operating system versions it contains, have already been analyzed and tested by SUTEL on previous occasions and it has already been determined that they are suitable to connect to cellular telephone networks, they be required, due to an erroneous normative interpretation, to subject their device to the entire approval (homologación) procedure developed in said resolution – so that they may thus obtain the mentioned distinctive and thus their device can be connected to the telephone network-. </u>A situation that is currently occurring, according to what the Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad reports. In such a case, if the service provider or operator can establish with certainty the lawful origin of the device and that it corresponds to a brand, model, and version of software, firmware, and operating system that has already been previously approved (homologados) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications -by virtue of some approval (homologación) request filed by some other importer, distributor, provider, operator, or individual-, and if the other requirements imposed by the legal system are also met, there is no reasonable justification for denying the user the provision of the service, regardless of whether the device has the cited distinctive or not. Especially if the requirement to obtain the distinctive in question is to subject the device to the referenced approval (homologación) procedure. Given such a hypothesis, <u>it can be concluded that the requirement imposed by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, regarding the absolute prohibition of connecting terminal devices that do not have the cited distinctive to cellular telephone networks, regardless of whether the device has technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, becomes a prohibition of general scope that, for this Court, does not manage to satisfy 'proportionality in the strict sense' -as a sub-principle of the constitutional principle of reasonableness and which consists of determining the existence of an equilibrium or balance between the means employed and the end pursued</u>-. </i></span><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;\r\nline-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN'>(...)</span></i><span\r\nlang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'>" The highlighting is ours. </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:\r\n11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN'>VII.- </span></b><span\r\nlang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'>The preceding considerations demonstrate that the approval (homologación) requirement imposed by SUTEL is valid and applicable exclusively to operators and providers, but not to those persons (individuals or legal entities) that have, as part of a legitimate commercial activity, the sale of this type of mobile devices, without offering the public connectivity to the cellular telephone network, since for such purposes, it is insisted, they require administrative authorization granted by the aforementioned Superintendence, and in such cases, the requirement to sell approved (homologados) devices is indeed enforceable and reasonable. On the other hand, in that same resolution, the Constitutional Chamber highlighted the illegitimacy of requiring the user, as a connectivity requirement, the exclusive use of approved (homologados) devices. In that vein, in considerando V, it indicates: "<b>V.- REGARDING THE POLICY OF FREE COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION GUARANTEED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.</b> (...) <i>Every consumer has the right to choose, within their scope of individual freedom, and under the respect of the minimum regulations that guarantee telecommunications services, the form and means of freely accessing the referenced goods and services. In particular, they must have an open range of possibilities to be able to choose the device that best suits them, considering the price and their personal needs, to request the connection of the service. (...) At this point, it is important to rescue what Article 46 of the Political Constitution provides, insofar as it enshrines several principles and rights, related to business freedom and the protection of consumer rights. With the implementation of said constitutional provision, it is intended to prevent the exercise of a dominant position that impedes effective competition. The exercise of said power can cause the ability to eliminate or significantly weaken existing competition, or prevent potential competitors from entering the market. Therefore, this Court understands that the decision to require operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services to only be able to activate on their networks those terminal equipment that have the respective approval (homologación) identifier, regardless of whether the device presents technical characteristics that have already been reviewed and approved (homologadas) by the Superintendence of Telecommunications, constitutes a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonableness or proportionality – for contravening the sub-principle of 'proportionality in the strict sense'-, to the detriment of the consumers' right to freely choose and access the public goods and services of their interest." </i>Hence, this Court shares SUTEL's allegations in indicating that under the shelter of these considerations, the decision to acquire an approved (homologado) device or one without that condition concerns exclusively the end user, since they are empowered to choose the equipment of their preference; nonetheless, attending to the implications of approval (homologación), which is to establish the minimum operating conditions for terminal equipment that will connect to the networks of operators and providers of publicly available telecommunications services, they assume the consequences of the risks of their decision. From what was stated by the Constitutional Chamber, it is inferred that the user can connect a terminal to the network that has not been previously approved (homologada), provided it meets the same characteristics (identity of brand, model, hardware version, software, firmware, operating system, among others) as other terminals that have been approved (homologadas) by SUTEL. However, it is evident that unapproved (no homologados) devices that have no similarity to a previously approved (homologado) one could present functional deficiencies regarding connectivity, potentially causing some degree of interference or damage to the quality and integrity of the network. But, it is reiterated, the acquisition and </span><b><span\r\nlang=EN style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:\r\nEN'>the use of a terminal with or without approval (homologación) is the free decision of the end user. </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;\r\nline-height:150%;font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Indeed, as has been established in the list of proven facts, as a provision for this aspect, within operative paragraph number 7 of resolution number RCS-332-2013, agreement 015-066-2013 -referred to in the previous section-, it was ordered: "<i>7. To indicate that when an end user wishes to activate an unapproved (no homologado) mobile device, the OBLIGATED PARTIES, with the exception of those that carry out the sale and distribution of terminals, must request from the user the respective documentation or reliable and reasonable proof that verifies the lawful origin of the device and verify that it has the same technical characteristics (brand, model, hardware version, software/firmware, and operating system) as the equipment approved (homologados) by SUTEL. Likewise, the user must sign, prior to the activation of the services, a document in which they state that they waive future claims for service quality problems, according to the following format: (...).</i>" (Images 42-68 of the case file, specifically, 46-47) This provision requires the obligated parties that, prior to connecting an unapproved (no homologado) device to the network, acquired by lawful means, to require the user to provide proof of its acquisition, and sign a template of waiver of future claims, which leads to the inference of the possibility of choosing this type of mobile phones. It is worth noting that this provision was analyzed by the Constitutional Chamber in vote No. 2220-2013 at 2:30 p.m. on February 19, 2013, endorsing that template by considering that it did not harm Constitutional Rights. Again, this demonstrates the possibility of acquiring unapproved (no homologados) devices, for which reason the plaintiff's assertions lack normative support [...]."</span><o:p></o:p></p>\r\n\r\n<p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>\r\n\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n</body>\r\n\r\n</html>\r\n" }

“IV. Sobre las competencias de SUTEL y rol de tutela del servicio de telecomunicaciones. Mediante el artículo 41 aparte j) de la Ley No. 8660 del 08 de agosto del 2008, se adicionó un capítulo XI, a la Ley de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos, No. 7593, para incluir mediante reforma a los numerales 59 al 81, la creación de la SUTEL. Se trata de un órgano de desconcentración máxima adscrito a la ARESEP, con personalidad jurídica instrumental para administrar el Fondo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (art. 59). Desde ese plano, constituye la instancia rectora en el campo de las telecomunicaciones, producto de lo cual, acorde al ordinal 60 de la Ley No. 7593, ostenta las siguientes obligaciones derivadas de sus potestades de imperio: "Son obligaciones fundamentales de la Sutel: a) Aplicar el ordenamiento jurídico de las telecomunicaciones, para lo cual actuará en concordancia con las políticas del Sector, lo establecido en el Plan nacional de desarrollo de las telecomunicaciones, la Ley general de telecomunicaciones, las disposiciones establecidas en esta Ley y las demás disposiciones legales y reglamentarias que resulten aplicables. b) Administrar el Fondo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones y garantizar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones de acceso y servicio universal que se impongan a los operadores de redes y proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones. c) Promover la diversidad de los servicios de telecomunicaciones y la introducción de nuevas tecnologías. d) Garantizar y proteger los derechos de los usuarios de las telecomunicaciones. e) Velar por el cumplimiento de los deberes y derechos de los operadores de redes y proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones. f) Asegurar, en forma objetiva, proporcional, oportuna, transparente, eficiente y no discriminatoria, el acceso a los recursos escasos asociados con la operación de redes y la prestación de servicios de telecomunicaciones. g) Controlar y comprobar el uso eficiente del espectro radioeléctrico, las emisiones radioeléctricas, así como la inspección, detección, identificación y eliminación de las interferencias perjudiciales y los recursos de numeración, conforme a los planes respectivos. h) Asegurar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones de acceso e interconexión que se impongan a los operadores de redes de telecomunicaciones, así como la interoperabilidad de dichas redes. i) Establecer y garantizar estándares de calidad de las redes y de los servicios de telecomunicaciones para hacerlos más eficientes y productivos. j) Velar por la sostenibilidad ambiental en la explotación de las redes y la prestación de los servicios de telecomunicaciones. k) Conocer y sancionar las infracciones administrativas en que incurran los operadores de redes y los proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones; así como establecer la responsabilidad civil de sus funcionarios.". Acorde a estas competencias, y atendiendo a los principios que impone la Ley General de Telecomunicaciones, No. 8642, la SUTEL se constituye como una instancia que ingresa en una dinámica triangular, en la que concurren los operadores y proveedores de los servicios de telecomunicación, a quienes regula, fiscaliza y controla en lo referente al cumplimiento de los deberes y obligaciones asociados a esa condición y además, tutela los derechos de los usuarios de estos servicios. Esto hace surgir niveles de relaciones diversas que se presentan entre SUTEL-operadores (y proveedores), SUTEL-usuarios, y el control de las relaciones entre operador-usuario, operador-operador, a fin de que se satisfagan debidamente los principios impuestos por el ordinal 3 de la Ley No. 9462 (universalidad, solidaridad, beneficio al usuario, transparencia, publicidad, competencia efectiva, no discriminación, neutralidad tecnológica, optimización de recursos, privacidad de información y sostenibilidad ambiental). Desde el plano de los usuarios, el canon 45 ejusdem establece la lista de derechos que le son propios como destinatarios de los servicios aludidos; de igual manera, los mandatos 47 y 48 de ese cuerpo legal establecen el procedimiento de atención de reclamaciones de los usuarios, en el cual, se detalla que deberán formular las reclamaciones ante el operador o proveedor, quien debe resolver en un plazo máximo de 10 días naturales, pudiendo pasar el conocimiento del caso a la SUTEL en los supuestos de falta de respuesta, resolución negativa o insuficiente. Cabe destacar que cuando la reclamación sea fundada, sin perjuicio de las sanciones pertinentes, la Sutel dictará las disposiciones pertinentes para que se corrijan las anomalías y, cuando en derecho corresponda, ordenará resarcir los daños y perjuicios en sede administrativa. Estas decisiones serán vinculantes para las partes involucradas, sin detrimento de la posibilidad de su impugnación administrativa o cuestionamiento en sede judicial contencioso-administrativa. Esta potestad de regulación lleva implícita la de sanción, misma que viene reconocida a partir del ordinal 65 ibídem, tema que no se amerita ponderar en este proceso.

V.- Sujetos obligados frente a las competencias de la SUTEL. Ahora bien, para efectos de este proceso, es necesario tener claridad de los sujetos a quienes aplican las regulaciones de la SUTEL acorde al marco normativo señalado y a los que por ende, son extensibles las competencias de ese órgano administrativo. En ese sentido, la Ley No. 8642 en su numeral primero, referente al objeto y ámbito de aplicación, establece en el párrafo segundo: "...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." Desde ese plano, las regulaciones y competencias propias de la SUTEL se direccionan a los operadores y proveedores del sector de telecomunicaciones, sea que cuenten con alguno de los títulos habilitantes que la ley estipula. Desde luego que estas competencias se extienden a los operadores o proveedores ilegítimos, respecto de los cuales podrían aplicarse las acciones correctivas que correspondan. Esto exige precisar el contenido de esos conceptos. La misma ley se dedica a expresar estos conceptos, y señala que el operador es toda persona física o jurídica, pública o privada, que explota redes de telecomunicaciones con la debida concesión o autorización, las cuales podrán prestar o no servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público en general (art. 6 inciso 12). Por su parte, define como proveedor a la persona física o jurídica, pública o privada, que proporciona servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público sobre una red de telecomunicaciones con la debida concesión o autorización, según corresponda (art. 6 inciso 16). La debida comprensión de las anteriores reglas permite concluir anticipadamente, como aspecto relevante para este proceso, que las competencias de SUTEL, en la medida en que se extiende únicamente a los operadores y proveedores de los servicios de telecomunicaciones, no incluye a los comerciantes que se dedican a la venta de teléfonos móviles, salvo que esos dispositivos sean transados por un operador o proveedor de servicios, como parte de las relaciones jurídicas que ejercen a partir de la concesión o autorización administrativa otorgada; sea, que con la adquisición de servicios de telefonía móvil (caso que resulta importante a esta causa), se negocie la entrega, arrendamiento o compra de un dispositivo de esa índole. Empero, en los supuestos de casas o establecimientos comerciales que se dediquen a la venta de los teléfonos móviles, sin incluir el servicio de telefonía dentro de esa transacción, no encajan dentro del concepto de operador o proveedor del servicio, por lo que las regulaciones que en ese campo emita la SUTEL, no son directamente aplicables, así como ese órgano no posee competencia legal para restringir, controlar o sancionar a ese giro económico, salvo que se compruebe un ejercicio ilegítimo contrario a la Ley No. 8642, lo que no se presenta en este caso. Vale precisar, que el contenido y alcance de las transacciones consistentes en compra y venta de dispositivos móviles con casas comerciales que no sea operadores o proveedores (legítimos) de servicios de telecomunicaciones, así como la tutela de los derechos del consumidor de esos productos, es un tema que si bien escapa de las competencias de la SUTEL, se encuentra regulada y comprendida en la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, No. 7472, misma que establece reglas especiales y específicas para este fin público, así como instancias institucionales, sea, la Comisión Nacional del Consumidor, a las cuales puede acudir la persona que estime lesionados sus derechos al adquirir teléfonos móviles que no satisfagan sus expectativas de funcionalidad.

VI.- Sobre el trámite de homologación de terminales móviles. No obstante, con la finalidad de concretar y satisfacer los principios ya señalados, que imperan y se imponen en el campo de las telecomunicaciones, la SUTEL ha creado un trámite de homologación de dispositivos, lo que garantiza al usuario que el aparato que adquiere, funcionará correctamente en cuanto a la conectividad con la red de telecomunicaciones. En ese sentido, y al amparo del artículo 73, inciso m) de la Ley No. 7593, así como del numeral 17 del Reglamento sobre el Régimen de Protección al Usuario Final de los Servicios de Telecomunicaciones, y los artículos 13, 14, 15 y 16 del Reglamento de Prestación y Calidad de los Servicios, la resolución RCS-332-2013, de las 11 :00 horas del 11 de diciembre, publicada en el diario oficial La Gaceta 247 del 23 de diciembre del 2013, fija y establece las condiciones mínimas de los terminales móviles que se deben verificar de previo a la comercialización por parte de los operadores y proveedores de los servicios de telecomunicaciones, con el fin de procurar el correcto y seguro funcionamiento de los equipos terminales y determinar que cumplan con estándares necesarios para operar en las redes móviles costarricenses, y de esta forma garantizar la salud, la seguridad y los intereses económicos de los usuarios finales. Incluso, en el mismo acto aludido, se señala en el por tanto número 11 que establece: "...en el caso de que los OBLIGADOS comercialicen, distribuyan o incluyan en sus planes terminales bloqueados, los OBLIGADOS deberán sustituirlos por terminales que se encuentren desbloqueados y debidamente homologados por parte de la SUTEL sin perjuicio del derecho de la SUTEL de tomar las acciones sancionatorias correspondientes...". Si bien en virtud del campo de acción de la Ley No. 8642, la SUTEL puede exigir al operador de redes públicas o proveedor de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público, la comercialización de terminales homologadas, esa exigencia no puede aplicarse, como pretende el accionante a los terceros comerciantes que no son operadores o proveedores regulados, sin que pueda desprenderse de la Ley No. 8642 o de la Ley No. 7593, la asignación de una competencia expresa conferida a la SUTEL para regular la venta de aparatos móviles celulares por parte de quienes no tengan concesión o autorización para operar el servicio de telecomunicaciones. Se trata de una actividad comercial no restringida, que si bien se encuentra sujeta a las reglas normales del derecho de consumo, no puede ser fiscalizada de manera inmediata y directa por el órgano persona accionado. Así visto, en el presente asunto no se ha podido comprobar que el establecimiento comercial denominado Casa Blanca sea un sujeto regulado por la SUTEL, por lo que, el alegato del actor en cuanto a supuestas omisiones o inercias en el ejercicio de las competencias de fiscalización y control sobre el cumplimiento del contenido de las resoluciones que imponen el trámite de homologación, no son atendibles. Ergo, lejos de lo que afirma el accionante, la Administración demandada no posee competencia legal para regular o sancionar la venta de terminales móviles no homologados, en la medida en que, se insiste, esa competencias es propia de las relaciones de consumo que se encuentran regidas por la Ley No. 7472, por lo que no le corresponde sancionar la venta de aparatos no homologados por este tipo de establecimientos, en lo que corresponde a la calidad y buen funcionamiento del dispositivo en si mismo considerado. Ante ello, la alegación de que la SUTEL incurre en omisiones que potencian y propician la venta de teléfonos celulares no homologados no encuentra respaldo, en la medida en que se expresa sobre la base de la supuesta experiencia del accionante de haber adquirido en un negocio no regulado por ese órgano, un aparato que ha presentado deficiencias de operación y conectividad. En esa línea, cabe destacar que el mismo actor reconoce que sabía y fue informado en el negocio Casa Blanca, que el teléfono que adquiría no estaba homologado, inclinando su elección de consumo sobre la base de un tema de costos (según su dicho). Asimismo, conocía que adquiría el dispositivo móvil de un agente comercial que no es operador de redes celulares. Desde esa arista de examen, las deficiencias de operación que alega ha tenido el citado aparato, no han de ser dirimidas ante la SUTEL, sino ante las instancias de protección al consumidor ya referidas. Cabe destacar que la misma Sala Constitucional se ha referido al tema de la homologación requerida por la SUTEL para los dispositivos distribuidos, entregados o transados por los operadores o proveedores. En ese sentido, en el voto No. 2011-003089 de las 08 horas 38 minutos del 11 de marzo del 2011, ese Tribunal Constitucional resolvió un recurso de amparo en el que ese cuestionaba la resolución número RCS-614-2009 del Consejo de la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, publicada en el diario oficial La Gaceta del 25 de enero del 2009, denominada "Procedimiento para la Homologación de Terminales de Telefonía Móvil". En ese fallo sobre el tema analizado indicó en lo relevante: "IV.- SOBRE LA OBLIGACION QUE TIENE UN OPERADOR O PROVEEDOR DE ACTIVAR EN SUS REDES UNICAMENTE TERMINALES HOMOLOGADAS POR LA SUPERINTENDENCIA DE TELECOMUNICACIONES . Como ya se indicó, el citado procedimiento de homologación pretende resguardar la salud, seguridad e intereses económicos de los usuarios, al verificar el correcto y seguro funcionamiento de los dispositivos o equipos terminales que se introducen el país con la intención de conectarse a las redes de servicio de telefonía móvil. Lo que, en principio, resulta razonable. Por otro lado debe destacarse que dicha obligación con el procedimiento de homologación resulta aplicable a las empresas operadoras o proveedores que ulteriormente obtienen el certificado de homologación, deben enviar las listas de los equipos móviles previo a su distribución o comercialización a nivel nacional. Exigencia que también es razonable, cuando se trata de empresas que se dedican a ese giro comercial, lo que no resulta coherente ni razonable es que si un usuario en particular adquiere, de forma lícita, un equipo o aparato terminal de telefonía celular que no cuenta con el distintivo de homologación a que hace referencia el considerando X, punto 6, de la resolución RCS-614-2009, pero la marca y modelo de su equipo, así como las versiones de hardware, software, firmware y sistema operativo que éste contiene, ya han sido analizadas y probadas por la SUTEL en ocasiones anteriores y ya se ha determinado que sí son idóneos para conectarse a las redes de telefonía celular, se le exija por una errónea interpretación normativa, someter su aparato a todo el procedimiento de homologación desarrollado en dicha resolución –para que así pueda obtener el mencionado distintivo y así su aparato pueda ser conectado a la red de telefonía-. Situación que está ocurriendo actualmente, según lo informa el Presidente Ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad. En tal caso, si el proveedor u operador del servicio puede establecer con certeza el origen lícito del aparato y que éste corresponde a una marca, modelo y versión de software, firmware y sistema operativo que ya ha sido previamente homologados por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones -en virtud de alguna solicitud de homologación planteada por algún otro importador, distribuidor, proveedor, operador o particular-, y si además se cumplen los demás requisitos impuestos por el ordenamiento jurídico, no existe una justificación razonable para que se le deniegue el usuario la prestación del servicio, independientemente que el aparato cuente o no con el citado distintivo. Máxime si el requisito para obtener el distintivo en cuestión es someter el aparato al referido procedimiento de homologación. Ante tal hipótesis, se puede concluir que el requerimiento impuesto por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, en cuanto a la prohibición absoluta de conectar a las redes de telefonía celular aparatos terminales que no cuenten con el citado distintivo, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, se convierte en una prohibición de alcance general que, para este Tribunal, no alcanza a satisfacer la “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto” -como subprincipio del principio constitucional de razonabilidad y que consiste en la determinación de la existencia de un equilibrio o balance entre el medio empleado y el fin perseguido-. (...)" El resaltado es propio.

VII.- Las anteriores consideraciones ponen en evidencia que el requisito de homologación que ha impuesto la SUTEL es válido y aplicable exclusivamente para los operadores y proveedores, más no así para aquellas personas (físicas o jurídicas) que tengan como parte de una actividad comercial legítima, la venta de este tipo de dispositivos móviles, sin ofrecer al público la conectividad a la red de telefonía celular, pues para tales efectos, se insiste, requieren de habilitación administrativa concedida por la Superintendencia mencionada, y en tales casos, sí es exigible y razonable el requerimiento de venta de aparatos homologados. Por otro lado, en esa misma resolución, la Sala Constitucional destacó la ilegitimidad de requerir al usuario, como requisito de conectividad, la utilización exclusiva de dispositivos homologados. En esa línea, en el considerando V, indica: "V.- SOBRE LA POLÍTICA DE LIBRE COMPETENCIA Y LA PROTECCIÓN AL CONSUMIDOR GARANTIZADA A NIVEL CONSTITUCIONAL. (...) Todo consumidor, tiene derecho a elegir, dentro de su ámbito de libertad individual, y bajo el respeto de las regulaciones mínimas que garantizan los servicios de telecomunicaciones, la forma y el medio de acceder libremente a los referidos bienes servicios. En particular, tienen que tener un abanico abierto de posibilidades para poder escoger el aparato que más le convenga, atendiendo al precio y a sus necesidades personales, para solicitar la conexión del servicio. (...) En este punto resulta importante rescatar lo que dispone el artículo 46 de la Constitución Política, en cuanto consagra varios principios y derechos, relacionados con la libertad empresarial y la protección de los derechos del consumidor. Con la puesta en marcha de dicha disposición constitucional, se pretende evitar el ejercicio de una posición dominante, que impida una competencia efectiva. El ejercicio de dicho poder, puede provocar la capacidad de eliminar o debilitar de forma importante la competencia existente, o impedir que competidores potenciales entre en el mercado. Por lo que este Tribunal entiende que la decisión de exigirle a los operadores o proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público que únicamente puedan activar en sus redes, aquellos equipos terminales que cuenten con el respectivo identificador de homologación, independientemente que el aparato presente características técnicas que ya hayan sido revisadas y homologadas por la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, supone una violación al principio constitucional de razonabilidad o proporcionalidad –por contravenir el subprincipio de “proporcionalidad en sentido estricto”-, en detrimento del derecho de los consumidores a escoger y acceder libremente a los bienes y servicios públicos de su interés." De ahí que este Tribunal comparta las alegaciones de la SUTEL en cuanto indica que al socaire de esas consideraciones, la decisión de adquirir un dispositivo homologado o uno sin esa condición, atañe exclusivamente al usuario final, pues se encuentra facultado para elegir el equipo de su preferencia, no obstante, atendiendo a las implicaciones de la homologación, cual es, establecer las condiciones mínimas de operación de los equipos terminales que se conectarán a las redes de los operadores y proveedores de servicios de telecomunicaciones disponibles al público, asume las consecuencias de los riesgos de su decisión. De lo expuesto por la Sala Constitucional se desprende que el usuario puede conectar a la red una terminal que no haya sido homologada previamente, siempre y cuando cumpla con las mismas características (identidad de marca, modelo, versión de hardware, software, firmware, sistema operativo, entre otros) de otras terminales que hayan sido homologadas por la SUTEL. Sin embargo, es evidente que los aparatos no homologados y que no poseen ninguna similitud con uno previamente homologado, podrían presentar deficiencias de funcionamiento en cuanto a conectividad, pudiendo causar algún grado de interferencia o daño en la calidad e integridad de la red. Empero, se reitera, la adquisición y la utilización de una terminal con homologación o sin ella, es decisión libre del usuario final. Incluso, tal y como se ha establecido en el elenco de hechos probados, como previsión a este aspecto, dentro el por tanto número 7 de la resolución número RCS-332-2013, acuerdo 015-066-2013 -referida en el aparte previo-, se dispuso: "7. Señalar que cuando un usuario final desee activar un dispositivo móvil no homologado, los OBLIGADOS, con excepción de aquellos que realicen venta y distribución de terminales, deberán solicitar al usuario la respectiva documentación o prueba fehaciente y razonable que compruebe el origen licito del aparato y verificar que éste cuente con las mismas características técnicas (marca, modelo, versión de hardware, software/firmware y sistema operativo) que los equipos homologados por la SUTEL. Asimismo, el usuario deberá firmar, de previo a la activación de los servicios, un documento donde manifieste que renuncia a futuras reclamaciones por problemas de calidad del servicio, de acuerdo con el siguiente formato: (...)." (Imágenes 42-68 del expediente, en concreto, 46-47) Esta disposición exige a los obligados que, de previo a conectar a la red un dispositivo no homologado, adquirido por medios lícitos, requieran al usuario la acreditación de su adquisición, y firmar un machote de renuncia de futuras reclamaciones, lo que hace colegir la posibilidad de elegir este tipo de móviles. Cabe destacar que esta disposición fue analizada por la Sala Constitucional en el voto No. 2220-2013 de las 14 horas 30 minutos del 19 de febrero del 2013, respaldando ese machote al estimar que no lesionaba el Derecho de la Constitución. De nuevo, ello pone en evidencia la posibilidad de adquisición de aparatos no homologados, razón por la cual las afirmaciones del accionante carecen de sustento normativo […].”