@Magnetic88, that is a good question. As with bitcoin, some people are being actively involved in the maintaining the infrastructure, because they are benefitting financially from this, while others are just simple users and don't have the resources and knowhow to benefit from that.
The overall problem with descntralised network is that they are slow and unreliable and nobody would put large resources at play in order to change that. But, we can see that private networks lack this problem. There are also paid Bittorrent services that download the stuff for you and send you the files afterwards. Think at it like selling your ratio. There will be people out there motivated to invest in large servers, thus providing a fast and reliable infrastructure. The "coin" would be more valuable as there will be this thing you could only buy with IT: cheap access to a reliable descentralised, encrypted network. And, of course, instead of only mining coins, you would also provide a userful service by putting resources at play (bandwith and storage).

That's what peaople already do on private networks becaused they are forced by rules to do so. But some people either cannot leave their computer/tablet on, haven't got the needed broadband but they could pay someone else to be a backbone, as it happens with bitcoin.

We all know Bittorrent, but we also know it's shortcommings. At first, the exitement was great, as multiple torrent applications were imagined. But the Bittorrent showed it's bottleneck: without a constraint (like on private trackers), people won't bother too much about ratios. But combining ratios with a failsafe monetisation system would only allow new connections to be made to people with better contributions. People wit poor internet connections could pay others with servers in order to get the credit to allow more connections.
I realised that it would be a hard work to program such a system, especially the security part put the payoff would be huge.