Court Sets Cell Deadline

The Supreme Court's Constitutional Chamber (Sala IV) has given the country's former telecommunication monopoly, ICE, 90 days to loosen its strangle hold on the cell phone market. This sector of communications has been (theoretically) open to competition since January, 2009, when the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) took effect.

But ICE, a national autonomous company, has been dragging its feet since then until both the government and, now, the court lost patience. ICE has not only delayed opening its cell phone market  to other cell phone providers but the Internet information highway as well.

According to the court, ICE's delays have been "excessive and unreasonable." The court handed down an unequivocal opinion that ICE's foot-dragging is affecting "the fundamental rights of customers who opted for freedom of services" when the nationwide CAFTA referendum referendum passed in October, 2007.

This was underscored in April when three government agencies were blocked from securing cell phone frequencies for incoming cellular providers, according to a report in the English-language paper, The Tico Times. Apparently, 50 years of monopoly is a hard habit for ICE to break.

Although some doubts surfaced whether the proper coordination can be managed among the catchall Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, the watchdog licensing agency, SUTEL and ICE in only three months, SUTEL spokeswoman Carlona Mora told the newspaper that if the deadline were enforced, ICE could open things up for their would-be competition.

Until then, only  ICE-authorized cell phones will be available. Delays and red tape in obtaining the phones have been a source of public dissatisfaction for years. SUTEL has already alerted ICE as to what must be done next to meet the 90-day limit, she said.

Demonstrating how bureaucratically arthritic ICE is, last month, ICE announced that it would absorb its Internet  subsidiary, RACSA, to be the main provider of on line access. But ICE also announced that it would not be leaner, since they decided not to fire any RACSA employees.

The RACSA CEO resigned, then a week later, withdrew his resignation. As a former government monopoly, apparently keeping a bloated staff was more important than efficiency. Certainly, few RACSA customers will lament the subsidiary's demise. It has been the source of complaints since its creation.

(When this reporter had a call-up Internet service, he was charged for an expensive long-distance call to Austria, despite no one at home speaking a word of German or knowing anyone in Austria. RACSA's cheerful answer: "Pay or lose your service.")