[ih] New journal article on IMPs, modems and gateways

Thu Jan 24 19:41:10 PST 2019

Hi all,

Thanks Alex for the comments. I really appreciate the 'nit-picky'-ness. We posted the article on the list to get feedback, so the comments are wonderful. I'll reply in-line.

1. We struggled when writing the paper about how serious AT&T considered taking over ARPANET. We eventually cut this argument, because it was beyond its scope and we didn't have a clear opinion. Howard Frank's quote at the start of the paper suggests there were meeting that didn't go anywhere. In JCR Licklider's archive, I found a mention that AT&T didn't like the idea of taking over the ARPANET because of privacy, but I could never check or qualify the comment. For discussion, the note was a summary of a panel discussion on National Networks held at the Interuniversity Communication Council Annual Meeting on 15 October 1970. It noted that AT&T did not want to take ownership of ARPANET because its design violated the company’s privacy obligations as a common carrier. A summary of the panel states, "the design of the IMPs creates a special security problem. On its way from the sender to the recipient, data pass through an IMP in the possession of a third party, who has access to it. The carrier traditionally has responsibility for the security of transmission; thus AT&T find the current situation unacceptable". I never found any more details or context for that quote.

2. Agreed, that sentence is unclear. We're not claiming ARPANET's design led to the break up of AT&T. We're providing some context about the broader movement toward decentralization and markets not ARPANET itself.

3. I'll look into how I can revise that description. Much appreciated. Reading the old documentation is great, but it can be a challenge to interpret.

Vint, are you referring to the ARPANET: A Management Study: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/777747.pdf You given some context, but I'd welcome any more details.

Best,
Fenwick McKelvey
http://www.fenwickmckelvey.com

Associate Professor, Communication Studies, Concordia University

Director of the Algorithmic Media Observatory
http://www.amo-oma.ca/en/

Member of the Center for the Study of Democratic Citizenship
http://csdc-cecd.ca/
________________________________
From: Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 9:54 PM
To: Alex McKenzie
Cc: Fenwick Mckelvey; kdriscoll at virginia.edu; internet-history at postel.org
Subject: Re: [ih] New journal article on IMPs, modems and gateways

AT&T was not approached to take over the ARPANET as far as I know - they were invited to participate in it and declined.
Around 1972 Paul Baran and I did a study for ARPA about distributing its IMP assets to various parties rather than making
it monolithic. ARPA declined that idea. Eventually it was handed to DCA in 1975 to operate as a service.

Bell Labs was interested in its own Bell Data Network design but not interested in taking over ARPANET.

v

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:43 PM Alex McKenzie <aamsendonly396 at gmail.com<mailto:aamsendonly396 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Fenwick,

Thank you for posting the pointer to this article to the Internet History list.    I've finally had a chance to read it, and I have a few comments.

1.  Your paper investigates ARPANET IMPs (and internet gateways) as boundary devices, insulating two technical spheres ("computer people" and "telephone people") from each other.  This, in my opinion, is absolutely correct.  But then you go on to suggest that these two spheres are not really so distinct, and that "it was not inconceivable that control of the publicly-funded ARPANET would be transferred to the national telecommunications monopoly. ... While it is unclear how seriously AT&T considered taking over ARPANET."  I believe that AT&T DID seriously consider taking over ARPANET and firmly rejected the idea as of no practical interest to their mission.  For example, in the Computer History Museum transcript of an interview with Dr. Lawrence "Larry" Roberts [https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2013/04/102746626-05-01-acc.pdf], page 14, Larry says about AT&T: "They were formally approached. The Washington division was excited. They said to me there was a lot of revenue they were getting from the leased lines; they thought it was great. They got excited about it, and Bell Labs got involved, and they had a huge committee, and I presume they went over and over it, and they kept on looking at it, and eventually -- they never gave a response, because that was their way of doing business, but I found out that Bell Labs had said: 'No, it was not compatible with the plan.' "   I understand this to mean that leasing lines with data modems was within the plan, but actually fussing with any of the data going over the lines was outside the plan.  This seems to me entirely consistent with the AT&T philosophy of "carrying signals is our business, understanding the signals is NOT our business."

2. On page 14 you suggest that the "market-oriented logic" of the internet concept led to the break-up of the Bell monopoly.  I believe this is incorrect.  I believe AT&T proposed the break-up (to the court hearing a US Department of Justice lawsuit for antitrust violations against AT&T) as a strategy to avoid losing its anti-trust case.  I do not believe the logic of the internet design had anything to do with the outcome of this case.  Can you cite any evidence to support your viewpoint?

3. Your description of the TIP (page 8) is slightly incorrect.  The TIP had 64 ports, but due to a program limitation only 63 of the ports could be used.  Any port could be connected to either a modem or a directly-wired terminal.  Your description suggests that at most 16 modems could be connected, but in fact 63 modems could be connected (if there were no directly-connected terminals) but this never happened.  The directly-wired devices were not restricted to "teleprinter or video terminals"; some TIPs had line printers or other non-interactive devices attached to some ports.

I know this is all a bit pedantic and nit-picky, but I hate to have the historical record distorted by misunderstandings in the printed literature.

Sincerely,
Alex McKenzie
BBN 1967-1996

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 10:44 PM Fenwick Mckelvey <fenwick.mckelvey at concordia.ca<mailto:fenwick.mckelvey at concordia.ca>> wrote:
Hi,
Kevin Driscoll and I are happy to share our new article on the interface message processor, modems and gateways published in the special issue on ARPANET in the Internet Histories journal.

You can view the article for free at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/yMkaE54yuIerwcwViDnE/full

Our article focuses on the IMP’s relation to the telephone system – all its work connecting nodes through long lines and modems – and to the history of gateways. We hope the article inspires more interest in our fields on gateways and other devices at the margins that connected computer networks over the years. As media historians, we are hoping to collect more examples, especially specific gateways, and welcome suggestions of where to look next.

For me, the article was also a chance to focus more on IMPs in context, building on some insights from my new book Internet Daemons, http://internetdaemons.com.

If you have any questions or comments, we’d love to hear them.

Finally, a big thanks to Dave Walden for his feedback in writing this manuscript. His website, book and comments made this publication possible. All our errors are our own.

Hope you enoy!

Best,
Fenwick
Associate Professor, Communication Studies
Concordia University
http://www.fenwickmckelvey.com

_______
internet-history mailing list
internet-history at postel.org<mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
Contact list-owner at postel.org<mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
_______
internet-history mailing list
internet-history at postel.org<mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
Contact list-owner at postel.org<mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.

--
New postal address:
Google
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190125/6065e41c/attachment.htm>