Actually, it's quite logical - and in fact, the lack of 'getting it' about packets follows directly from the former (their large existing circuit switch network). This dates back to Baran (see his oral history: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/107101 pg. 19 and on), but it was still detectable almost two decades later. For a variety of all-too-human reasons (of the flavour of 'we're the networking experts, what do you know'; 'we know all about circuit networks, this packet stuff is too different'; 'we don't want to obsolete our giant investment', etc, etc), along with genuine concerns about some real issues of packet switching (e.g. the congestion stuff, and how well the system handled load and overload), packet switching just was a bridge too far from what they already had. Think IBM and timesharing versus batch and mainframe versus small computers. Noel