If it makes you feel any better, I intentionally never use products that have intentionally repetitive messaging or earworm tendencies out of spite. Though I know I’m probably in the minority

Brother, I’m a 10+ year network engineer… Bluetooth is a low power, low speed, short range(30 feet) technology. The power of Bluetooth signals are over 1000x weaker than what cellphones use to connect to cell towers. There isn’t going to be any sophisticated “networking” happening between airtags. Your original post was almost gibberish, I had to struggle to arrive at the point you’re trying to make. You can call it a network if you want but you’re asking if it could be practical as a standalone, autonomous network and the answer is no. They lack the capability to communicate over any meaningful distance. Not much “networking” capability if it can’t talk to other networks. Others have struggled to talk sense into you so I won’t waste anymore of my time. Though I’d suggest that if you’re going to argue against logic then you should be more open to reason.

I think you need to take the thought of “network” completely out of your mind. This protocol is specifically regarding devices such as air tags, which don’t have any network capability themselves but rely on “connecting” to Bluetooth of the manufacturers models. The phones themselves are what gives tracking information back, based on GPS of the phone that was in proximity of the tracker.

The question that Google/Apple have is, how can we make sure people aren’t unknowingly being tracked by someone putting a physical tracker in say, your car. THAT’S the “protocol” part. A protocol is just an agreement on how a technology is going to be implemented. If your own tracker is following you that’s fine, the MAC address will keep changing. If someone else’s air tag is following you, your phone will know this tracker has been near you for some time, and will tell you.