In preceding papers a Landauer-Büttiker type representation of bulk current transport has been successfully used for the numerical simulation of the magneto transport of 2-dimensional electron systems in the high magnetic field regime. In this paper it is demonstrated, that this representation is in full agreement with a treatment of the bulk current transport as a tunneling process between magnetic bound states. Additionally we find a correspondence between our network representation and the bulk current picture in terms of mixed phases mapped on a checkerboard: At half filled Landau level (LL) coupled droplets of a quantum Hall (QH) liquid phase and coupled droplets of an insulator phase phase exist at the same time, with each of them occupying half of the sample area. Removing a single electron from to such a QH liquid droplet at half filling completes the QH transition to the next higher QH plateau. Adding a single electron to such a droplet at half filling completes the QH transition to the previous lower QH plateau. As a consequence, the sharpness of the QH plateau transitions on the magnetic field axis depends on the typical size of the droplets, which can be understood as a measure of the disorder in the sample.Concerning modeling of quantum transport, one of the very first attempts can be attributed to R.Landauer [111,112]. A major step forward was achieved by M. Büttiker by introducing the so-called Landauer-Büttiker (LB) formalism and the EC-picture of the QHE[1]. For modeling quantum transport and localzation in the bulk, mainly network models on the basis of the Chalker Coddington (CC) network [113] are used. However, a model, which generates data in terms of voltages and resistances, which would allow a direct comparison which experimental data for realistically shaped samples had not been developed so far. In order to do so, an approach to combine EC transport and bulk transport has been made some time ago [68,71]. Subsequently that model has been expanded to a network [85], which is also the subject of this paper. Although the basic idea of our network is common with the basic idea of the CC network, our handling of the nodes is substantially different: In contrast to a CC network our network does not use a transfer matrix for amplitudes and phases. We use transmission by tunneling, but incorporating the effect of tunneling according to the LB formalism. The nodes are described by a back scattering function P , which is the ration of reflection and transmission coefficient R/T .