The Race for Cyberspace: China’s IP Standards and the Threat to Net Neutrality

The competition among information communication technologies (ICTs) has become a central aspect of the global struggle for power and influence. At the heart of this lies the issue of internet governance, where the principles of internet sovereignty and net neutrality are in direct conflict with each other. While most Western countries uphold net neutrality, ensuring fair and equal treatment of all internet traffic, China advocates for internet sovereignty, asserting its right to govern and control the internet. This stance is epitomized by the Great Firewall, which regulates internet access for Chinese users.

This article is part of a series of articles authored by young, aspiring China scholars under the Future CHOICE initiative.

China has also long opposed the multi-stakeholder model of the current internet protocol (IP), advocating for a more centralized, state-led alternative instead. Beijing has leveraged its influence within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to push for new protocols that would replace or supplement the existing ones and expand its control over internet traffic.

Moreover, several analysts have raised concerns about the increasing adoption of China’s IP standards across the Global South, warning that this could lead to a so-called ‘splinternet’ – a fragmented internet, with isolated systems controlled by different governments. In this way, China’s push for its own internet protocol heightens concerns about the interoperability of global internet systems as well as Beijing’s role in shaping global digital development. This includes fears of increased authoritarian governance, Chinese espionage in political and business circles, and the possibility of China gaining the upper hand in critical technologies.

The Rise of IPv6+

As we move toward an era of increased digital connectivity, the need to improve our IP capabilities becomes more urgent. IPv6 is the sixth iteration of globally accepted IP standards, which was developed to replace the existing IPv4 standards. However, the global roll-out of IPv6 has lagged due to insufficient ICT infrastructure capable of supporting the new protocol.

Since 2017, China has accelerated its domestic development and implementation of IPv6, as outlined in its IPv6 Special Action Plan. This is effectively an industrial strategy aimed at achieving breakthroughs in IPv6 technology – such as advanced routing systems and next-generation internet architecture – while promoting these standards globally to secure a first-mover advantage and reduce reliance on Western technology standards.

Both IPv4 and IPv6 ensure that only the IP addresses of senders and receivers are visible, which helps to maintain fairness by preventing favoritism or discrimination in internet traffic. However, China’s IPv6+ threatens this principle of fair and equal treatment of internet traffic. Backed by telecommunication giants like Huawei, IPv6+ enables network providers to exert control – through senders – over data packet contents and routing paths.

Beijing argues that the increasing complexity of new technologies, such as 5G, the Internet of Things (IoT), and cloud networks, requires more stringent regulation of the internet. Prior to IPv6+, China introduced the New Internet Protocol (New IP) proposals, which the ITU rejected in 2022, concluding that there was no need for further regulation of the internet and that China’s proposals risked politicizing a forum intended for technical discussions. IPv6+ is thus seen as a renewed attempt by China to introduce new governance standards on the global stage.

At the ITU’s 2022 World Telecommunication Development Conference, Beijing unveiled IPv6+ as an enhanced version of IPv6. Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies began marketing IPv6+ as a product offering, highlighting its technical benefits. China claims IPv6+ offers three key advantages: more efficient information allocation, improved integration of network resource management technologies, and innovative solutions for addressing connectivity challenges.

Critics, however, argue that IPv6+ is simply a rebranding of China’s earlier attempts to disrupt global internet governance through its New IP proposals. The introduction of IPv6+ has escalated concerns about the tenets of net neutrality, with critics questioning whether the processing capabilities of IPv4 and IPv6 can meet the demands of 5G and cloud networks.

Competing Visions of Network Traffic Control

Unlike the long-term vision for future internet governance in the New IP proposals, IPv6+ is presented as a short-term enhancement of IPv6 that incorporates industry-wide innovations like segment routing. This incremental approach raises fewer concerns than the sweeping changes of New IP. Moreover, companies like Nokia and Cisco have themselves explored segment routing as a way of meeting the 5G connectivity demands while reducing infrastructure costs. These companies, however, assert that they can maintain user privacy while implementing technical features similar to IPv6+.

China and Huawei are thus not the only players pushing for more control over internet traffic. Network providers in the US and EU have long challenged net neutrality, proposing models that would allow them to differentiate between types of internet traffic and charge major content providers for their traffic loads. The EU’s Fair Share Initiative has reignited debates over whether such content providers are ‘free riding’ on network infrastructure and should thus contribute to the costs of its expansion and improvement. Although the European Commission completed its public consultation on this issue in October 2023, a final decision is not expected until 2025. The Commission’s director for connectivity, Rita Wezenbeek, has emphasized that the Fair Share Initiative would not undermine net neutrality to the extent that IPv6+ could and that European telecommunication companies remain opposed to IPv6+.

While IPv6 is relevant mainly for digitally advanced countries in the Global North, IPv6+ and other centralized IP proposals are appealing to countries in the Global South. This is because China’s technology for the roll-out of both IPv6 and IPv6+ is more cost-effective, and many developing countries already rely on Chinese ICT infrastructure. Additionally, a centralized, state-led internet is arguably more attractive to authoritarian regimes. For example, China’s New IP proposals have gained support from ten African countries, many of which are governed by authoritarian regimes that practice internet shutdowns.

The Future of Global Internet Governance

China’s state-driven approach to technological innovation is guided by detailed action plans with specific benchmarks. In alignment with the IPv6 Special Action Plan, the deployment of IPv6 and promotion of IPv6+ by Chinese telecom companies has seen substantial results, with 84 IPv6+ networks installed and 90 more planned by the end of 2023. These domestic initiatives have helped to prepare Huawei and other telecom companies for the global promotion of Chinese technology standards at scale, which is supported also by state subsidies and close cooperation between the public and private sectors.

African countries are likely to remain central to China’s international efforts at promoting the adoption of IPv6+. Indeed, Huawei has already initiated its plans for IPv6+ roll-outs across Rwanda, Uganda, and South Africa. Even in Europe, where some countries banned Huawei from their digital infrastructures, the company continues to operate in countries like Germany and parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, the Digital Silk Road (DSR), which was launched in 2015 as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), will remain a significant channel for exporting Chinese technology standards, with Western initiatives like the EU’s Global Gateway struggling to compete with the BRI’s and DSR’s models based on low costs and extensive lending.

In 2022, the European Commission dissolved a working group involved in promoting IPv6+ at the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). While this was an important step toward protecting net neutrality, the EU must remain cautious, not only of external threats but also of internal pressures from domestic network providers seeking to alter internet traffic rules. Afterall, despite the EU’s successes in stalling the adoption of IPv6+ or New IP as global standards, China and Huawei are poised to continue the roll-out of IPv6+ through their international ICT projects, regardless of the ITU approval.