05.04.2013 Views

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Potential Economy-wide ... - USITC

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Potential Economy-wide ... - USITC

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Potential Economy-wide ... - USITC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

investment (FDI) in facilities-based telecommunication-services firms to 49 percent of total<br />

voting shares. 59 The provisions of the FTA, however, remove this restriction, allowing<br />

100 percent foreign ownership 2 years after the FTA enters into force. 60 Although high levels<br />

of competition, the maturation of important market segments (box 4.4), and FTA exclusions<br />

pertaining to mobile services 61 and nonfacilities-based service providers 62 may deter U.S.<br />

firms from entering the domestic <strong>Korea</strong>n market and/or impair the ability of U.S. firms to<br />

offer telecommunication services to residential and/or corporate customers within <strong>Korea</strong>, the<br />

FTA’s investment provisions would likely benefit U.S. firms seeking to offer international<br />

corporate data, virtual private network, and Internet Protocol-based corporate customers in<br />

<strong>Korea</strong>.<br />

The telecommunication provisions of the U.S.-<strong>Korea</strong> FTA would likely have minimal impact<br />

on U.S. cross-border imports of telecommunication services, largely due to already high<br />

levels of price competition for voice telephone services between the United States and<br />

<strong>Korea</strong>. Efforts by the FCC to reduce accounting rates may have contributed to the decline<br />

in per minute prices during the years 2001 to 2005. Overall, U.S. imports of<br />

telecommunication services were relatively small, totaling $74 million, or 2 percent of total<br />

telecommunications exports, in 2005. 63 The FTA would likely have minimal impact on the<br />

entry of <strong>Korea</strong>n telecommunication firms into the U.S. market, or the sales of existing<br />

<strong>Korea</strong>n subsidiaries in the United States, due largely to the existing regulatory openness of<br />

the U.S. telecommunication services market. For example, <strong>Korea</strong>n operator SK Telecom<br />

currently offers wireless service in the United States via Helio, a mobile virtual network<br />

operator (MVNO) 64 established as a 50/50 joint venture with U.S. Internet firm Earthlink. 65<br />

High levels of competition in the U.S. telecommunication services market and several FTA<br />

exclusions pertaining to mobile services operators 66 in the United States may deter additional<br />

market entry by <strong>Korea</strong>n telecommunication services firms.<br />

59 USFCS, “Doing Business in <strong>Korea</strong>: A Country Commercial Guide for U.S. Companies,” 2005, 88; EIU,<br />

“Country Commerce: South <strong>Korea</strong>,” July 2006, 117; and USTR, “<strong>Korea</strong>,” 2007 National <strong>Trade</strong> Estimate<br />

Report on Foreign <strong>Trade</strong> Barriers, April 2, 2007, 367.<br />

60 At the end of 2005, foreign ownership in <strong>Korea</strong>’s major fixed-line telecommunication services firms<br />

included 5 percent in Dacom, 46 percent in KT, and 48 percent in Hanaro Telecom. In the wireless sector,<br />

foreign ownership stood at 22.5 percent in KT <strong>Free</strong>tel, 27 percent in LG Telecom, and 49 percent in SK<br />

Telecom. EIU, “Country Commerce: South <strong>Korea</strong>,” July 2006, 118.<br />

61 In <strong>Korea</strong>, commercial mobile services are not subject to commitments related to major suppliers,<br />

services resale, network unbundling, leased circuits, colocation, and access to poles, ducts, conduits, and<br />

rights-of-way.<br />

62 In <strong>Korea</strong>, commitments related to network unbundling, interconnection, leased circuits, submarine cable<br />

access, colocation, and access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way do not apply to non-facilities based<br />

providers.<br />

63 USDOC, BEA, Survey of Current Business, October 2006.<br />

64 MVNOs typically do not own spectrum allocation or telecommunication network facilities. As a result,<br />

MVNOs typically resell the wireless services of established mobile services providers. Helio, for example,<br />

leases network capacity from Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel.<br />

65 Krause, “Amp'd Mobile Bankruptcy Casts Shadow on MVNOs,” June 6, 2007; Nam, “Helio's Losses<br />

To Widen This Year-SK Telecom,” February 7, 2007; Kawaguchi, “Telecommunications: Wireless-Asia,”<br />

April 2007, 12; and Tae-gyu, “Telecom Operators Set Eyes on Overseas Markets,” July 29, 2007.<br />

66 In the United States, commercial mobile services are not subject to commitments related to dialing<br />

parity, major suppliers, services resale, and access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way.<br />

4-12

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!