For example, education is a major service. Some governments have made commitments to allow foreign supply of education services. That doesn't mean that they have opened up their education market to unrestricted foreign competition, because they can be very selective about the type of services they guarantee to allow in. But this means that governments at all levels, central and sub-central, have woken up to the fact that they have obligations and could have specific commitments in areas which they haven't been used to thinking of as international trade. This scenario is multiplied in its effect by the possibility of supply through electronic means, which has the effect of abolishing distance.
Many services can be and are supplied directly from one side of the world to the other.
Consequently, governments at the sub-central levels are certainly much more aware of their potential obligations, as well as of their opportunities, because their firms can also export more than they were before. The debate between a free and a controlled market has raged for years. The WTO seems to be tending toward free trade. The WTO certainly stands for liberal trade, by which we mean the least necessary interference with trade by governments. We don't stand for free trade in the sense of unregulated trade.