use it; where "the more the merrier" -- then it makes sense to attribute much
of the value of this resource to the "publicness" of the resource. Indeed, as
Rose argues, "the usual rationing function of pricing could be counter-
productive [in these cases]: participants need encouragement to join these
activities, where their participation produces beneficial 'externalities' for
other participants."[6-6]

These are cases where "increasing participation _enhances_ the value of the
activity rather than diminishing it." Or, we might say more precisely, these
are cases where the value from increased participation outweighs any cost
from increased utilization. The value, in these cases, comes from the con-
vergence of many upon a common use, or standard, or practice. And in
these cases, keeping the resource in the commons is a way to assure that that
value is preserved for all.[6-7]

These arguments from tradition are thus grounded in both fairness and
efficiency, and economists have extended the arguments from efficiency.[6-8]
One extension in particular links back directly to the end-to-end argument.

The linking goes like this: Some resources have an understood purpose.
We know what we will do with a certain resource, or at least the range of
possible uses for that resource is small. But other resources don't come with
their purpose preset.

Take telephone wires in the 1910s. Communications wires had been
strung in America since the early 1800s. When they were first strung, their
use was simple: telegraph. Given the technology at the time, there was little
more that the wire could be used for; it was single-purpose. When tele-
phones came along, there was a second possible use for the wire. That led
to a new shake-up in business models. But here again, given the technology,
the range of possible uses for these wires was not great.

Contrast this with computer networks. The most striking feature of the
early history of the Internet is the repeated assertion by those at its founding
that they simply didn't know what the network would be used for. Here they
were building this large-scale computer network, with a large number of re-
sources devoted to it, but none of them had a clear idea of the uses to which
this network would be put. Many in the 1980s believed the Internet would
be a fair substitute for telephones (they of course were wrong); none had any
idea of the potential for many-to-many publishing that the World Wide Web
would produce.[6-9]

Where we have little understanding about how a resource will be
used, we have more reason to keep that resource in the commons.[6-10] And

[[88]]

p087 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p088w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p089

v?