Re: Internet history
> On Oct 21, 2021, at 12:47 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:15 PM John Levine wrote: >> But it's definitely worth a visit, particularly if Len Kleinrock is around >> to give his spiel about "LO" the first message. >> >> https://uclaconnectionlab.org/internet-museum/ > > Hi John, > > Is it currently possible to visit? The web page doesn't say anything > and Google Maps says the building is closed. Boelter Hall (at UCLA, where the IMP is) is open now. This fall we largely do in-person teaching, the campus is full of students and visitors. Lixia
Re: Internet history
On 21/10/2021 21:52, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 21, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: [changed to a more appropriate subject] On 10/20/21 3:52 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 10/20/21 3:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: Just as an interesting aside if you're interested in the history of networking, When Wizards Stayed Up Late is quite elucidating. +10 to Where Wizards Stay Up Late. I recently re-acquired (multiple copies of) it. (Multiple because I wanted the same edition that I couldn't locate after multiple moves.) One of the things about the book was that it finally confirmed for me what I had heard but thought might be apocryphal which was that one of my co-workers at Cisco (Charlie Klein) was the first one to receive a packet on ARPAnet. I guess it sent an "l" and then immediately crashed. They fixed the problem and the next time they got "login:". It also casts shade on another early well known person which gives me some amount of schadenfreude. It was “LO”, and Mr. Kline sent the packets, but you got it essentially right. Source: https://uclaconnectionlab.org/internet-museum/ The last picture confirms Mr. Kline sent the LO and crashed the WHOLE INTERENT (FSVO “Internet”) just a couple seconds after it started. Reminds me of the time the entire Swift network crashed when the capital of Ecuador (Quito) was added to the network. :-) -Hank
Re: Internet history
This didn't go through. Trying again. On 10/21/2021 2:39 PM, scott wrote: On 10/21/2021 8:52 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: It was “LO”, and Mr. Kline sent the packets, but you got it essentially right. --- A picture of the sign explaining it and a picture of IMP 1 (seventeen years ago next Friday, Oct 29) at the "35th Anniversary of the Internet" at UCLA. That was 2004. A slapped together web page (you'll have to rotate a couple of the images) just for this email: http://surfer.mauigateway.com/imp/imp.html I am over 6 feet tall, so that "router" is giant! Even though it is not really a router, I like to tell non-technical folks that it is one of the internet's first two routers and then I send them to RFC 1. It takes a whole beer to finish the story of the first thing transmitted was LO as in "lo and behold...I exist". Dr Kleinrock is the nicest person. I was embarrassed to ask for a picture, which is why I look so funny (I am not a picture person, but the nerd in me couldn't resist) and he could tell. He was the nicest person to me to help me calm down. I'll not forget that. scott ps. I also am not a very good photographer, thus the light reflection on the sign. :)
Re: Internet history
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:15 PM John Levine wrote: > But it's definitely worth a visit, particularly if Len Kleinrock is around to > give his spiel about "LO" the first message. > > https://uclaconnectionlab.org/internet-museum/ Hi John, Is it currently possible to visit? The web page doesn't say anything and Google Maps says the building is closed. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Re: Internet history
It appears that Patrick W. Gilmore said: > >My understanding is that really is IMP No. 1. Someone found it in the “to be >scrapped” pile & rescued it, then they closed off room 3420 & made it a >micro-museum. I believe the teletype >is not the original, but is a real ASR-33. The Sigma 7 is a prop, I believe. The IMP is real, as are some of the notebooks. Everything else is a prop. The terminal isn't even a model 33, it's a model 32 which says ITT in large letters so you know it was retired from Telex service, not computing. But it's definitely worth a visit, particularly if Len Kleinrock is around to give his spiel about "LO" the first message. https://uclaconnectionlab.org/internet-museum/ R's, John
Re: Internet history
On 10/21/21 11:52 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 21, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: [changed to a more appropriate subject] On 10/20/21 3:52 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 10/20/21 3:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: Just as an interesting aside if you're interested in the history of networking, When Wizards Stayed Up Late is quite elucidating. +10 to Where Wizards Stay Up Late. I recently re-acquired (multiple copies of) it. (Multiple because I wanted the same edition that I couldn't locate after multiple moves.) One of the things about the book was that it finally confirmed for me what I had heard but thought might be apocryphal which was that one of my co-workers at Cisco (Charlie Klein) was the first one to receive a packet on ARPAnet. I guess it sent an "l" and then immediately crashed. They fixed the problem and the next time they got "login:". It also casts shade on another early well known person which gives me some amount of schadenfreude. It was “LO”, and Mr. Kline sent the packets, but you got it essentially right. Source: https://uclaconnectionlab.org/internet-museum/ The last picture confirms Mr. Kline sent the LO and crashed the WHOLE INTERENT (FSVO “Internet”) just a couple seconds after it started. I wonder if he will ever live it down. :-) Apparently at the time it was not that big a deal. He did the test at 10:30 PM. He did not call and wake anyone up, everyone had to read about it in the notes the next day. My understanding is that really is IMP No. 1. Someone found it in the “to be scrapped” pile & rescued it, then they closed off room 3420 & made it a micro-museum. I believe the teletype is not the original, but is a real ASR-33. The Sigma 7 is a prop, I believe. Anyone can visit it for free (other than parking, which is expensive near UCLA!). If you are near UClA, you should stop by. To be honest, it is both overwhelming and underwhelming. Overwhelming because of what it was and represents. Underwhelming because it is a tiny classroom with a half-glass locked door and a plaque in the basement of the mathematics department at a public university that looks like it was built in the 40s. I went to UCLA for mathematics, and spent quite a bit of time in that hallway without even realizing what that room was. (It was not a museum at the time.) The destination was Stanford, iirc. I've always thought it was pretty odd that BBN essentially threw the IMP over the wall clear to the west coast. You would think they'd want something a lot closer to Boston to make for easier debugging. But I knew that I should have looked up the details :) Mike
Re: Internet history
On Oct 21, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > [changed to a more appropriate subject] > > On 10/20/21 3:52 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: >> On 10/20/21 3:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >>> Just as an interesting aside if you're interested in the history of >>> networking, When Wizards Stayed Up Late is quite elucidating. >> >> +10 to Where Wizards Stay Up Late. >> >> I recently re-acquired (multiple copies of) it. (Multiple because I wanted >> the same edition that I couldn't locate after multiple moves.) >> >> > One of the things about the book was that it finally confirmed for me what I > had heard but thought might be apocryphal which was that one of my co-workers > at Cisco (Charlie Klein) was the first one to receive a packet on ARPAnet. I > guess it sent an "l" and then immediately crashed. They fixed the problem and > the next time they got "login:". It also casts shade on another early well > known person which gives me some amount of schadenfreude. It was “LO”, and Mr. Kline sent the packets, but you got it essentially right. Source: https://uclaconnectionlab.org/internet-museum/ The last picture confirms Mr. Kline sent the LO and crashed the WHOLE INTERENT (FSVO “Internet”) just a couple seconds after it started. I wonder if he will ever live it down. :-) Apparently at the time it was not that big a deal. He did the test at 10:30 PM. He did not call and wake anyone up, everyone had to read about it in the notes the next day. My understanding is that really is IMP No. 1. Someone found it in the “to be scrapped” pile & rescued it, then they closed off room 3420 & made it a micro-museum. I believe the teletype is not the original, but is a real ASR-33. The Sigma 7 is a prop, I believe. Anyone can visit it for free (other than parking, which is expensive near UCLA!). If you are near UClA, you should stop by. To be honest, it is both overwhelming and underwhelming. Overwhelming because of what it was and represents. Underwhelming because it is a tiny classroom with a half-glass locked door and a plaque in the basement of the mathematics department at a public university that looks like it was built in the 40s. I went to UCLA for mathematics, and spent quite a bit of time in that hallway without even realizing what that room was. (It was not a museum at the time.) -- TTFN, patrick
Internet history
[changed to a more appropriate subject] On 10/20/21 3:52 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 10/20/21 3:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: Just as an interesting aside if you're interested in the history of networking, When Wizards Stayed Up Late is quite elucidating. +10 to Where Wizards Stay Up Late. I recently re-acquired (multiple copies of) it. (Multiple because I wanted the same edition that I couldn't locate after multiple moves.) One of the things about the book was that it finally confirmed for me what I had heard but thought might be apocryphal which was that one of my co-workers at Cisco (Charlie Klein) was the first one to receive a packet on ARPAnet. I guess it sent an "l" and then immediately crashed. They fixed the problem and the next time they got "login:". It also casts shade on another early well known person which gives me some amount of schadenfreude. Mike
Re: Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?
On 6/8/2015 08:46, Jay Farrell via NANOG wrote: The article is nothing more or less than what you'd expect to read from the American Enterprise Institute. "All regulation totally sucks" is their only message ever. Unaddressed so far, is the appearance that the regulator quoted (without apparent bias from the AEI author) has "tinkered" with the history. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?
On 6/8/15, 6:56 AM, "Fletcher Kittredge" mailto:fkitt...@gwi.net>> wrote: Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband... Without respect to the merits of the AEI article, I did want to point out that cable companies have been investing in broadband / Internet services well before 2005. They were in an R&D phase in the early 1990s and by around 1995 - 1996 there were many cable modem trial deployments underway in the U.S. Comcast and several other cable companies launched their cable Internet service in 1996 in partnership with @Home. For some early background, see: https://www.informit.com/library/content.aspx?b=Planet_Broadband&seqNum=17 http://www.businessweek.com/1996/42/b34971.htm http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-12-04/business/1996339002_1_cable-modem-cable-companies-modem-service Regards, Jason Livingood
Re: Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?
The article is nothing more or less than what you'd expect to read from the American Enterprise Institute. "All regulation totally sucks" is their only message ever. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Larry Sheldon > wrote: > > > Looks to me that there are issues of interest here. > > > > > > > http://www.aei.org/publication/tom-wheeler-tries-to-rewrite-internet-history/ > > > This isn't a very good article. > > At best, it is a set of unsubstantiated claims regarding events of > undefined correlation. "Change in regulation Y led to less investment in > [bad sector] and more investment in [good sector]." Really? Details of how > much more? How much less? Why was this better? How did you measure that? > There are only vague figures without attribution and no establishment of > causal link. The assumption is just made that investment decisions are made > for regulatory reasons. This is particularly suspect because, as you may > recall, there were other things going on in that period. Like the Internet > Bubble. > > The timeline of events is screwed with. He uses the period between 1996 and > 2000, when the Internet Bubble popped, and compares it to 1996 to 2005, > when Powell/Martin did away with pro-competitive regulation. Yes, during > the bubble, which ended in 2000, there was a huge investment in fiber, but > it is a difficult argument to make that the investment was because of > regulation since the regulatory change happened in 2005. If it was the > regulatory change, why didn't investment happen during the missing five > years? Since it is a widely held thesis that the fiber bubble popped > because of a huge oversupply of dark fiber, why is that not directly > addressed. > > Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband, but again that > market wasn't technologically developed yet in say, 1999. Further, how can > you focus only the rate of change in cable investment without considering > the rate of change in DSL? > > Claiming the Internet bubble popped because of a change in telco regulatory > regime in the US is ridiculous, as is ignoring the effect of underlying > technology on the appearance and disappearance of markets. Regulators, > lawyers and politicians need to get over themselves and have a measured > perspective on their importance. > > The argument that killing competition from the CLECs led to more investment > and a better network is a difficult one to make. Particularly during a > period where the US's network lost is speed/quality advantage compared to > other advanced countries. There is a strong set of opinions that killing > CLEC competition was retardant on network speed/quality growth. I don't see > how articles like this are going to change minds. > > Disclaimer: I am a computer scientist. In general, I find public policy > arguments deeply annoying because they have flaws similar to the above. > > -- > Fletcher Kittredge > GWI > 8 Pomerleau Street > Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 > 207-602-1134 >
Re: Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > Looks to me that there are issues of interest here. > > > http://www.aei.org/publication/tom-wheeler-tries-to-rewrite-internet-history/ This isn't a very good article. At best, it is a set of unsubstantiated claims regarding events of undefined correlation. "Change in regulation Y led to less investment in [bad sector] and more investment in [good sector]." Really? Details of how much more? How much less? Why was this better? How did you measure that? There are only vague figures without attribution and no establishment of causal link. The assumption is just made that investment decisions are made for regulatory reasons. This is particularly suspect because, as you may recall, there were other things going on in that period. Like the Internet Bubble. The timeline of events is screwed with. He uses the period between 1996 and 2000, when the Internet Bubble popped, and compares it to 1996 to 2005, when Powell/Martin did away with pro-competitive regulation. Yes, during the bubble, which ended in 2000, there was a huge investment in fiber, but it is a difficult argument to make that the investment was because of regulation since the regulatory change happened in 2005. If it was the regulatory change, why didn't investment happen during the missing five years? Since it is a widely held thesis that the fiber bubble popped because of a huge oversupply of dark fiber, why is that not directly addressed. Yes, after 2005 cable companies invested in broadband, but again that market wasn't technologically developed yet in say, 1999. Further, how can you focus only the rate of change in cable investment without considering the rate of change in DSL? Claiming the Internet bubble popped because of a change in telco regulatory regime in the US is ridiculous, as is ignoring the effect of underlying technology on the appearance and disappearance of markets. Regulators, lawyers and politicians need to get over themselves and have a measured perspective on their importance. The argument that killing competition from the CLECs led to more investment and a better network is a difficult one to make. Particularly during a period where the US's network lost is speed/quality advantage compared to other advanced countries. There is a strong set of opinions that killing CLEC competition was retardant on network speed/quality growth. I don't see how articles like this are going to change minds. Disclaimer: I am a computer scientist. In general, I find public policy arguments deeply annoying because they have flaws similar to the above. -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Regulators now regulating Internet History? Really?
Looks to me that there are issues of interest here. http://www.aei.org/publication/tom-wheeler-tries-to-rewrite-internet-history/ -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
