I really don't care to differentiate between the two. Just because there is a pair of them doesn't mean their heads aren't up their poop shoot. So taking pen and paper and physically tracing lines from a CITS installation is waaaaaaaaay lower on my priority list when 3 level snuffy can do the same thing logically... but that would require INOSC to do something besides lock themselves out of a device or bring down a base. Toss in being undermanned and gaining new missions through standing up the JB... yeah.

On the bright side INOSCW's CC is on board with us not doing the diagrams for what he manages.



So much for standardization right amiright?

LMFAO - INOSC East is like a corporation??!! LOL Unless you mean a corporation such as Enron, little more than an empty shell of failed initiatives and commitments that has delivered nothing to its customers. So logging into two different databases stretches your abilities to the limit.... wow.
IF pretty slides and meaningless stats are the road to efficient centralization and smart management of the GIG I suppose they are well on their way.
You can call me whatever you like but I will remind you each time you do that name calling is the last defense of someone who cannot make a legitimate argument.
I think we may as well go ahead and outsource the customer support the INOSCs currently offer to a call center in Punjab. They may not know what the answer is but at least they can answer the phone. That would make them 50% more effective than what we currently experience.

Logging in to 2 different Remedy systems doesnt stretch anyones abilities.

It does attribute to the "I dont see that ticket" response, because often times people dont bother to check the other system. Or sometimes the floor only works one queue while the backshop works another.

While we're at it, youre really nothing more than an armchair quarterback in this matter. Its overwhelmingly clear from your attitude and verbiage that youve had no experience in an enterprise environment like a NOSC.



If grumpy and bitter old men, who know how to do nothing but complain about how things are, and why "I didnt need them when I was in" are the future, well... you get the point.



Yea! Cause, like, you dont have an argument!

Except in the case that name calling is an offensive, often satirical technique, used to point out a baseless and certifiably retarded rebuttal on a topic one party has no experience with, nor competence enough to know, understand, or articulate in such a fashion to facilitate intelligent discussion.

Mulligan?



I think we should fire all the old crusty idiots from leadership positions so we, as an Air Force, can move forward and stop being hindered by the mountain of sh*t you simply dont understand, or wont/dont put the effort in to learning.

Anyone else wish they could meet this dude in person and give him a wedgie or hold him down and hang spit loogies over his face till he cries?

Says the guy with Tom Selleck as his avatar?

You know, I came across this site looking for an answer to a problem and I thought it would be great to check it out. Then I cam across this thread where you do nothing but put people down left and right and talk up your precious INOSC. For one, you really come across as a miserable little man who feels that belittling people somehow makes him better. And the patience everyone has shown here is commendable. Dude, just TRY being nicer to people.

As for the INOSC... We've had nothing but problems with them since I've been dealing with them. Granted that hasn't been too long(6-8 months). I was a Radio troop for a number of years and moved over to 3D1X1. On top of that we've been dealing with joint basing here as well as we can. So our patience may be a bit thin. But it just seems like there is such a disconnect between the base and the INOSC. But there is a LOT I don't understand right now. I just don't see how the next phase of this transformation is going to make things better.

I dont talk UP the INOSC at all.

I do debunk trivial complaints about it.

There is a substantial difference between the two.

There are MORE than enough problems with how the INOSC operates on a daily basis. None of them contribute to the issues listed in this thread.

As for Base to INOSC relations, there are multiple wheels in motion before, during, and after migrations. You should expect that there be issues to be ironed out. Once everyone is migrated those issues will disappear. In addition, the Base NCC's are going away, so this whole "Base to INOSC" relationship... it really doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

You guys need to understand that youre in the middle of a migration, and migrations almost never go perfect, and there are always issues that come up during them.

Bases really need to get over this superiority/Im more important than anyone else mentality. It doesnt work in an enterprise support environment. Youre no more important than any other base.

Also realize that bases arent always in the loop of what the INOSCs are doing, and you dont necessarily need to be either.

Stop taking it personally.

I don't care about acronyms and migrations... You're a complete douche bag, and I'd like to stick my fist through your head. It's got nothing to do with anything other than you being a douche bag.

Oh, look a the tough guy

/scared

It's not personal. If all bases, you know the "customers" of the INOSC, have problems with the way they do business well... Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. In this particular case, the business practices of the INOSC affect the bases and their many comm users at these bases. That flag officers and Wing Commanders aren't happy about the "transformations" that comm is going through does not speak well for the path we are currently on and we will likely "revector" as the Army did when they went through the same shiat we are trying to do now and it didn't work.

Oh and with the 2 flight construct, the NCC has gone away as much as it will for the foreseeable future.

PPS: fix your portion of EITDR, please and thank you.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the A3 community took back control of the networks is because of attitudes like yours?
The idea that bases and their missions are somehow less important than the INOSC is laughable to the point of hysteria. Can't get those B-2's off the ground because SIPR is not available and we can't access critical loggie info. Sorry base you need to quit taking it personally and wait for us to let you in on the super secret pole sauce we use to justify our idiocy.... 1 day to 2 weeks is the norm and no we won't give you an ETRO more specific than that because you don't need to know.

When will you understand that the INOSCs are nothing more than support for the warfighter and as alleged professionals the INOSC personnel should be taking pride in having the most robust, error free, and available network possible? Not you though it is the never ending self stroke over ITIL and pretty dashboards and powerpoint slides instead.
I at least gave you credit that during your active duty time you actually learned enough about the mission to understand where the pieces fit.
Holy mother of pearl was I over generous in that assumption!!
Would you hurry up and get in the Navy so you can ground a boat or something. Maybe someone with an iota of competence will take your spot.

I sh*t bigger than you.

Thank you for the post...when I was reading the thread up to this post I was thinking the same thing.

As a senior communicator in for 24 years, this post hit the nail on the head. Comm is supposed to be support (hence the 3 in our AFSC) to the mission executors. I spent most of my career in assignments in OPS groups...where the mission came first and foremost. When I got assigned to a base comm sq, the pervasive attitude was thinking of 5 ways to say no to the customer...complete opposite. Had my computer moved once here at Lackland...2 weeks to get port security from the base worked out...REALLY...cause I can afford to be off the network for 2 weeks. This is why comm gets a bad rap in the operational Air Force. If you've ever sat in a brief at the 3-Star level or higher, you would see that GO's don't want to hear about migrations, firewalls, exchange servers, etc...they want the comms up and secure to execute the mission (kill the enemy and break his s**t).

I'll give you an example of buffoonery. Ulchi Focus Lens (2006) Korean penisula (largest C2 exercise in the world) 5000 augmentees on ROK. Comm sq decides to push patches in the middle of the exercise that requires CSA hands on installation, exercise has to pause to straightened out network. Comm CC and A6 explaining to the 3-star what happened. The same thing happens the NEXT DAY. I was standing outside the door for quite the a** chewing to the entire chain of command. The point to this story is that comm would of been responsible for screwing up a real operation...no ATO, no ammo to planes, no supplies to troops. We exist to support the warfighters, not the other way around. GO's and Wing CC's do not want to hear that the INOSC does this or that...and I have a feeling that there's going to be lots of phone calls from senior leaders to INOSC leadership the in the future...the ones that used to go the the Comm sq CCs.

my .2 cents on the subject

My point was emphasizing that the INSOCs customers are the Airmen themselves, not the bases. The support structure doesnt emphasize one base over another, as their importances are rather negligent in comparison. The focus is on the severity of the issue, and at what level the issue exists (rank of the person) that would have the larger impact. A wing commander not being able to send email has a larger operational impact than Amn Snuffy working at the bowling alley.

You have the right idea. Spot on in fact. But its the perspective and approach thats slightly misses the mark.

FYI, no one likes losing control of anything. I would expect people to be pissed off when an outside organization "takes over" any particular function.

Also remember that youre still in a migration, and will be for another couple of years or so.

Now that being said, I do think its catastrophically stupid that whoever decided to move forward with the AFNET, in respect to the systems engineering of the active directory structure, you know... the plan that Microsoft itself wont even admit is possible. Yeaaaa... bad, bad, HORRIBLE idea. But whats done is done, and unfortunately we all, INOSC, BASE, MAJCOM, etc have to accept, and live with that decision.

If youre going to respond, at least respond to what I actually said.

No where in my post did I say or imply anything that you just communicated.




You would be benefitted by reading the distinction made in the last post. And no, one base is no more important to the other. It revolves around the type of issue occurred, its criticality, and its impact, *not* what base its at.



Yes we get it. The grumpy, bitter, technically defunct old man knows better and we should all stop what we are doing because he knows better.

b*tch please

You still cant seem to get it through your narrow mind that youre in the middle of a migration. Things wont run smoothly as intended for another year or two.

If you are as right as you think you are, why are you wasting your time bitching on here and not pushing it up the chain? Why havent they listened to you? Well probably because someone smarter than you is telling you to shut the f**k up, sit down, and theyll seek your consultation if and when they need it with a big nice cheesy smile.

You are very much correct. And this actually is one of the largest problems with the INOSC. Comm's purpose is to empower and enable its customers to do what they need to do to accomplish their mission. The problem is that the INOSC has the primitive mentality of dictation and control. They act as an authority, and not as an enabler or service provider (not the ISP kind of service provider).

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this aspect, and you are very much correct.



You still see this in the INOSC to be honest. Hell you also see it at the Base level too. In almost all environments where a structured support, or hierarchical support model is in place, you always have people working tickets that look for the first, even the most trivial reason as to why its not their problem, the ticket is in the wrong queue, or its not as severe a problem as reported.

There needs to be a shift in the mentality in that respect. People who work these tickets, and Ive seen it time and time again, need to focus on 1 touch resolution, and ownership of the ticket. Meaning, by the time a ticket gets to you, you should only have to touch it once for the issue to be resolved. None of this ping pong crap back and forth to different orgs, etc. Also, ownership of the ticket - to my knowledge all personnel pluck tickets from a queue - higher priorities first of course. When you take a ticket, that ticket is yours, period. It is yours to resolve - no pawning it off on someone else. What should be happening is you work the ticket to your ability, and if you are not able to resolve it in the defined timeframe you ask an escalation engineer/tech/etc. Those "escalation" personnel should usually be contractors or NCO's. That NCO should then either take the ticket, or work shoulder to shoulder to explain what the issue is and how to fix it. If the NCO takes the ticket, he or she should follow up with the Airman, have them read the fix action summary, and ensure the Airman understands how the problem was resolved. Currently, I have not seen this happen that way.

That too is a problem with the INOSC. The people put in charge, as the rotations come and go, dont have any real experience in this type of environment. Its the blind leading the blind.

You guys often attack the system. The system (or support structure) is actually set up fine. Its the personnel within the system/support structure that simply implement it poorly, or not as it was intended to be implemented.

Overall, the sentiments brought up have some credibility, but the angle of attack is way off the mark.



This is what happens when people want to implement a solution without understanding the resulting overhead of it. Large bases like Lackland should only be using Port Security in high value places as it is not administratively scalable. This is why, if I recall correctly, bases should be using the .1x identity based solution instead of port security - as dictated by the STIG (again, IIRC).



This is in part what the customer should expect and be provided. But this is also in part naivety on the part of the leadership. You cant have it both ways unless you want to literally stand up one system beside another and build an entirely new network in parallel. Again, you simply cant have it both ways - its the nature of the Comm environment.



Until now that expectation, of the INOSC does this or that, hasnt been there for them to worry about. The expectation of that from the local comm shop, or majcom has been though. Its a shift of perspective that they have to both understand and get used to. It requires collaboration and communication, and on top of that no one likes change. They will, with time, get over their personal grievances and accept the current construct. Thats also an issue that the General level officers and respective GS's will have to iron out themselves. Thats not an issue to be fought, or waste energy fighting at lower levels.

I remember when I was 20 something and thought I had all the answers. During tech school My friend Cliff asked me what I was going to do with myself. I told him "In four years I will have my degree completed, get into a business and in six years would own my first red Lamborghini". I got out 26 years later with that degree plus some. No Lamborghini but I did get a red 83 Sentra and eventually my beloved 89 red tercel but more importantly i grew up along the way. I thought my supervisors were clueless and my two years of college made me the cat's meow as a new two striper.

Someday Lifeline you too will grow up and and when you do you will realize that after you get into your thirties and beyond your ideas are not so out of date after all and will wish the youngsters would have a little more regard for protocol and recognition of the value of life experience along with degrees and certs.
But this is not your time to grow up yet. Someday I hope you will.

And I'm still waiting for those 3 examples of where SNS has produced something tangible.....

That was a cute little story.

Im not 20 something, and Im a lot smarter, and much further developed in this field than you.

Spare the board the tweenie bopper bedtime stories.



Why do you need said examples?

If you dont have the capacity to look, learn, and discover for yourself, theres nothing to gain from someone else doing it for you. But one day youll wake up and recognize that when everyone else has caught on to it, and understands it except you, there might be an issue with your attitude. That time has already started.

The fact is nothing presented will be good enough for you anyway. Youll always be opposed to it with the naivety you consistently express on just about everything that you dont agree with. Mostly because "we didnt need it when I was in 40 years ago".

And Ill go ahead and preempt the "you cant prove it cause you didnt answer my question" response. Its not my job to spoon feed you, nor am I obligated to convince you one way or another. Its your responsibility not to look like an idiot, not someone elses to keep you from doing so.

Ahh and here i was hoping you had turned the corner with two civil posts in a row. oh well, heres to hoping.

Oh it wasnt that bad you mamby pamby

and... Douche.

You put an text image of a penis as your signature.

I may be a douche but your just plain gay.

Is that your way of tryna ask me out?

mmm mustache ride

...really