Networks (like the internet) that own themselves create new theoretical paths and concerns.  Instead of grappling with hierarchically nested, mechanical bodies of law and inventing institutions that map to physical territories and produce coherent answers to linear questions, networks require us to confront new questions:  in a collectively-owned commons, who governs?

The structure of the open network, with many nodes connected interdependently to many others, suggests that only collective values can govern it effectively.  The existence of a constant pulse of creative activity in an open network, leading to unpredictable yet ordered results that cannot be explained as mere sums of their parts, suggests that particular acts of individuals, even large groups of individuals, may not be as important as they are in non-networked environments. 

Rather, the relationships among those individuals, or among the groups in which they have membership, or among large nodes that serve to draw these individuals together, may be providing the interest and dynamism of the network. The relationship between the notes, rather than the notes themselves, is powerful in open networks. It is these relationships that create value. 

But these relationships are wholly decentralized.  If any individual attempted to stop the network in its tracks and demand an accounting of precisely what value he had contributed, so that he could propertize it and take it home to buy groceries, the network would not be able to respond and would collapse.  Closing the network, making it exclusive, changes it into something that is no longer alive.  

The telephone companies claim that they own “the network,” because they built it.  But ”the internet,” as it is understood by the public, is owned by no one.  Indeed, the internet arguably owns itself and has value of its own that is entirely independent of the identity of its access valves.  This value is being captured daily by the “owners” of the internet—everyone.  Over the last ten years, a wholly decentralized and global investment of time, money, and gifts created the internet, without any need for specific incentives provided by government (after the initial U.S. development projects had run their course).

So the internet is not only unowned, but it also has a liveliness and liberty of its own that is highly beneficial to mankind and requires protection.  The role of government should be to prohibit any form of ownership (or other action) that unreasonably interferes with the openness of and access to and responsible use of this commons by the collective group. 

We can start from the premise that there is a strong public interest (evidenced by Bush Administration as well as Clinton Administration comments) in having high-speed, unfettered internet access be available as widely as possible. We can graciously accept that there is a general public interest in protecting property and compensating property owners.  But we can regard access to the commons of the self-owned internet as a more important public interest than protecting the private property of the telecom companies.