Do We Still Need Tech Controllers?

10 years ago, Tech Controllers (MOS 2821 and 2823) were the Marines who made comm happen. When I hit the fleet in 2006, one of the first things that was made apparent to me was that you needed Tech Controllers if you wanted it all to come together. These Marines were the network integrators. They had the high GT scores. When there was a knock-down drag-out fight between sections, you went to a Tech Controller for the final answer on who was ultimately right. They owned not only the equipment string, but also the almighty Promina.

Things have changed. It is not 2003. The Promina is anything but mighty. The DoD is working towards the elimination of serial cables (which I have made a personal mission). Ethernet is cheaper, easier, faster, and not reliant on antiquated timing schemes. Additionally, we’ve had other advances, such modem encryption, that has limited the number of encryption devices we need. I’ll always think of Tech Controllers as the guys running the Fireberds. It is like their lightsaber. By moving away from multiplexors and serial cables, we’ve taken the lightsaber from our Jedis. Do we want to have Jedis without lightsabers? My last two assignments I’ve had Tech Controllers work directly for me. I made it very clear to them I saw their traditional role as antiquated, and gave them some recommendations to remain relevant. They’ve all bought in, traded their Fireberds for a laptop running Wireshark and I’m optimistic about their role going forward. We can benefit from Tech Controllers and should keep the MOS alive.

There is still a lot that needs to be sorted out. We’ve got the triangle of the 0651s (Data), 0689s (Information Assurance), and the 2821s (Tech Controller) that each have a piece in this puzzle, and because of the overlap there is confusion on where the demarcation line lies. They also haven’t had much formal training in Internet Protocol (IP) interaction, which I see as being one of their biggest responsibilities moving forward. Where should we go from here? I’d like to hear some feedback, but it is important to differentiate between what we should do with them now, and what we should do with them long term. Here’s my initial stab:

NOW

Overall network troubleshooters, owners of “the network”.
Protocol interaction outside the firewall using Wireshark.
Quality of Service
External encryptors

LONG TERM

Overall network troubleshooters, owners of “the network”.
External routing (to include Black Core device configuration if that is the route your SPE has taken the architecture).
Protocol interaction from the desktop to the STEP using Wireshark.
Quality of Service
External encryptors

31 Responses to "Do We Still Need Tech Controllers?"

Brian Plymale says:

March 27, 2014 at 8:47 pm

I think the two primary strengths Technical Controllers have and continue to have are troubleshooting and integration (aka convergence). While we are moving on in technology many of our partner nations are behind. The current capability of systems integration that Technical Controllers bring, but rarely get to use is still going to be needed as well. I distinctly remember a portion of the training being signalling and at least familiarity in the differences of E1 to T1 and on the tactical side I remember the nightmare of trying to integrate partner countries analog and digital switches into our systems with different bit rates and figuring out the way to accommodate their signaling.

Reply
1. John says:
  
  March 27, 2014 at 10:26 pm
  
  Brian,
  I agree that integration is important. We might be just as likely to integrate with a nation/service that is ahead of us as we would with one that is behind. As you alluded to, that is why it is so important that concepts and basics are still learned and reinforced. Being less tied to gear may help with that.
  
  Reply
  1. Brian Plymale says:
    
    March 27, 2014 at 11:54 pm
    
    John,
    I never considered myself tied to gear as a Technical Control chief but rather restrained by what I had available. The equipment was always a means to an ends and not the actual mission. I believe almost every techcontrol chief you talk to will give you the same answer. So many people not in the field thought we were Promina operators, but that was only one small part of what we did. Myself and everyone else I know, I’ll admit I have been out of the field awhile, has progressed with the times and took on whatever challenge was handed to us. When a new piece of gear was fielded Techcontrol typically tested and determined how to integrate it. When something couldn’t be accomplished by a communicator you asked techcon to make it happen, and we did. Techcontrol was more than operating a piece of gear it was a way of life and a purpose.
    
    Reply
Carmine Ginocchio says:

March 27, 2014 at 9:57 pm

Sir,

What I believe is happening, is that you’re associating Tech Controllers with equipment.
A Promina doesn’t equal a 2821. Nor should the 2821 be defined by it.

A Tech Controller maintains networks, regardless of the gear that is within. A Tech Controller understands network architecture more so than any other MOS.

The gear may have changed, but the need for the Tech Controller to bring everything together is still there. We still require high GT scores, and we’re still the knock down drag out dispute solvers.
As a contractor now, our main core of knowledge comes from none other than Tech Controllers, myself and a few others. Working hand in hand with the Marine Corps and her Tech Controllers.

You ask if you want a Jedi without a lightsaber? My reply is, why wouldn’t you want a Jedi?
A Jedi without a light saber is still a Jedi. In fact, a true Jedi would rather not use a light saber, but find alternate means of solving problems. That is your Tech Controller.

Frankly, you could have any old data guy…. Or, you could have a Mother Fuckin Jedi.

(Pardon the language, even in civis I’m still a Marine.)

Best regards,
Gino, the one and only.

Reply
1. John says:
  
  March 27, 2014 at 10:23 pm
  
  Gino,
  You might be surprised to hear, I agree with all of the points you make in this comment. The part where it becomes difficult is, a lot of people do feel MOSs are tied to gear, and the main point I am trying to get towards was reinforced by your comment. The gear and technology is changing at a rapid pace. I hope people still WANT to be a network Jedi.
  
  Reply
  1. Carmine Ginocchio says:
    
    March 27, 2014 at 11:06 pm
    
    I would think the desire is there.
    
    Tech Controllers are the most elite in the Comm field. Just ask any one of us.
    We truly do wear the MOS as a badge of honor.
    
    It is our job to be on the cutting edge, while being able to use all the tools in our tool box to construct a new light saber.
    
    Reply
Timothy Erickson says:

March 27, 2014 at 10:20 pm

The question you are asking is legitimate. However, from what I can gather from your post you have a misunderstanding of the true function of TECHCON. Technical Control is an agency under COMMCON, not just an MOS. So the real question should be, how do we employ the Marines whose MOS it is to function as this agency? The MOS, in reality, just gives us justification to write T&R standards and have a schoolhouse. The real meat and potatoes is those functions of TECHCON defined in the 3-40 that I am sure you must be familiar with.

When I look at the funcitons of TECHCON in the 3-40 and then consider how those can apply to modern IP networks, I keep coming to the conclusion that the FCAPS model of net management model used by most enterprise IT professionals in the private sector, which is also recommended by DISA in the UCR 2013, would work best for the USMC and TECHCON. If we start with that and then try to better define those lines of demarcation, we will be much better off. I wrote a paper on it if you would like me to send it to you. Thanks for your post here and I’m glad that MSgt Crawley introduced me.

Reply
1. John says:
  
  March 27, 2014 at 10:30 pm
  
  Tim,
  I would enjoy reading the paper (my e-mail address should appear on the comment). I’d like to read that and re-familiarize myself with FCAPS before I comment on this. I will say that I am not a huge fan of the UCR (especially the QoS portion).
  
  Reply
Brandon Grimes says:

March 27, 2014 at 11:10 pm

Sir, I couldn’t have said it better myself. As a tech controller I completely concur with your thoughts. I was the Techcon Chief on the 26 MEU and we, as I’m sure you know because we told everyone, ran a DISN/TE network. My responsibilities as the Techcon Chief were pretty much on par with your thoughts. I firmly believe that our doctrine must change in regards to the new and ever changing equipment string. There still needs to be a communicator on the ground that has an overall network knowledge base, not just one more hand on the assembly line. The wire shark knowledge is definitely important, and I also believe we really need to implement the use of the HST-3000 more in our new troubleshooting procedures as it is an excellent piece of test equipment in EOIP networks.

Reply
1. Jeremy Crawley says:
  
  March 27, 2014 at 11:40 pm
  
  Brandon, great point. I was waiting on that point and have been discussing the point alot lately and just a few minutes ago with. MGySgt Kirby about the use of our current tmde on an eoip network without serial. Wireshark may not be the answer for us but a tberd or hst. Jon…..good post. I will tell u the jedi dosent need a light sabre but is better with it. 13 years ago i was doing analog patching and using ky68s for dial up, then ldrm, then promina, next we are using an “ip mux” yes a router. The equipment changes, technology, changes and the techcontroller changes with it as the maintainer of the network.
  
  Reply
  1. John says:
    
    March 28, 2014 at 2:06 am
    
    This would be a great discussion. I look forward to stopping by the SPE and talking about this, especially your thoughts on what would possibly be a more appropriate lightsaber.
    
    Reply
    1. Timothy Erickson says:
      
      March 28, 2014 at 2:38 am
      
      My vote for the new lightsaber is the Optiview XG. It does in-line testing and has wireshark built in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO3SGMlHmvU
      
      Reply
      1. John says:
        
        March 28, 2014 at 3:04 am
        
        This looks pretty sweet. I wish we had the opportunity to be given a bunch of different versions of these types of tools in a sort of “try before you buy” scenario, but used and tested by the fleet.
Troy Price says:

March 27, 2014 at 11:38 pm

Does the Marine Corps need the function of Technical Control? Yes. This is a doctrinal function and cannot be negated.

Do we need MOS 2823 and 2821 Technical Controllers? No.

Having been one of the first (not the first but one of a very few) 2823’s that originally converted IDNX’s to Promina’s, and having taught the first TSQ-227 DTC Course I feel qualified and justified to make the comments that I am about to make.

Today,first and foremost, 2823/21’s are Electronic Maintenance Marines as identified by the “28” numeric identifier. This is codified in the many maintenance management and maintenance production tasks identified by the 28xx Training and Readiness Manual. Many would like to claim that the 2000-series tasks of the 2823 apply to the maintenance of a communications network but upon closer research you will discover that the 2862 has the exact same 2000-level tasks and the Performance Steps directly pertain to maintenance management and maintenance production.

Technical Controllers had the opportunity to transition the MOS to an 06xx MOS in 2000 but many did not want to relinquish the maintenance of the new and precious TSQ-227 to mere mortal 2844 and 2861 (the numbers have changed). The senior 2823’s fought a successful battle to tie the 2823 MOS to equipment in order to keep their 28xx MOS identifier and keep total control of the DTC. This tactic was later employed successfully to create the 2821 MOS, capitalizing on the introduction of the DITS.

The 2823/21 is also defined by the their maintenance tasks that pertain directly to the maintenance tasks performed on “O”-coded (I think it is “O” but I may be wrong) Technical Control equipment. All of this equipment is managed by Marine Corps Systems Command and correspondence has been received to end all of the programs that maintain all of this equipment. DTC, JECCS and DITS all have “kill letters” and will be disposed of in very short order.

The effect this has is that it effectively ends the requirement for the 2823 and the 2821 MOS. The 2823 MOS could possibly survive as it is not truly tied to equipment (there are five tasks not tied to equipment for the 2823) with its detailed communication planning tasks but the 2821 MOS is done as it was specifically created for the AN/TTC-5 DITS, which will be sunset in 24 months.

Back to the five tasks not tied to equipment. These five tasks pertain to planning, “quality of service” (that is signal quality not “Quality of Service” as defined by Cisco), and trouble shooting.

If you take a look back in the history of the community what you will find is that as our networks grew into data circuits transported by the switching networks and later by wideband multiplexing networks what you will find is Communications Chiefs distancing themselves for the detailed communications planning and allowing 2823 Gunnery Sergeants to do it (when the MOS had 59 billets, I was #37) and this allowed us to grow our numbers to 150 thus creating Master Sergeant and Master Gunnery Sergeant billets. So really, what should happen here is that the detailed communications planning should go back to the Communications Chiefs.

That is solution number one – Allow E8-E9 2823’s to become 0699’s; they are more than qualified to do it than many 0699. 0699 are “Communication Chiefs” not “People and Equipment Mangers” they should be expected to be able to perform detailed communications planning.

The “quality of service” tasks of the 2823 go away as there is no more amplification and attenuation required of IP network signals.

The network trouble-shooting, circuit installation and restoration, and network management tasks should go to whatever MOS is assigned the task of interfacing and managing the WAN. I know of very few 2823 MOS Marines that are capable of performing these tasks in an EoIP environment. There are a few individuals that are quite exceptional and that are capable of doing it, but the majority of the MOS is not and the cost of retraining to enable to do this is better spent adding a few tasks where they are applicable.

Here is solution number two – allow the 2821 MOS Marines the opportunity of becoming 2847’s, which they are capable of doing, or moving to another 06xx MOS.

2823 Marines that do not have a majority of the skills to transition to the 0699 MOS or an 065x or other 06xx MOS should be allowed to transition to the 2862 MOS or the 2891 MOS as their 2000-level tasks allow them to do this with absolutely no retraining.

In short, the day of the “282x” Technical Controller are coming to an end. This specific subject is currently a topic of discussion and will be a voting action item by the C4 Executive Steering Committee at the C4 OAG next month. I know that the C4 Manpower division and the the 28xx OccField Sponsor has asked the 2823 community to answer this question: “What is the future of the 2823?”

I have been told that there has been limited to know response from the collective 2823 community that C4 can act on, therefore it is being turned over to the OAG.

Reply
1. Jeremy Crawley says:
  
  March 28, 2014 at 1:09 am
  
  Troy, we have been yealling but have not been allowed to be heard. We have emails but no responses. Someone is trying to keep us quiet.
  
  Reply
  1. Troy Price says:
    
    May 15, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    
    Jeremy – You guys need an advocate inside the communities that C4 speaks directly to: The voting members of the C4 OAG, the C4 Executive Steering Committee, the Restricted Officers Working Group, The Communications Chief’s Conference.
    
    You actually have an advocate in many of this arenas. To a man, we all voted that Technical Control is a function that we can never let die. Conversely, we all voted that you don’t need to be 28xx.
    
    Reply
2. John says:
  
  March 28, 2014 at 1:58 am
  
  This was a very in-depth comment, thanks for taking the time to write it! Obviously something you have thought a lot about. I did not know the genesis of how they became tied to the DTC, etc. I had to read this a couple of times just to soak it all in. The biggest thing I took from this (outside of an increased interest in the results of the OAG) is that to really answer the question of the role of the 282x, you really need to re-examine the entire 06xx field. I’m going to have to poll some 0699s and see how they feel about this.
  
  Reply
Chris says:

March 28, 2014 at 12:42 am

Sir,
I feel that the reason that so many people would like to tie our MOS to the equipment is because it makes Everyone’s job easier. Unit “X” has “X” number of Promina’s, so they require “X” numbers of Marines at these ranks.

What piece of gear would you say the 0602’s are tied?

None, they are tied to a concept, as are all 2821/23. We are the network troubleshooters, regardless of what kind of network it is.

All the typical Data Chief knows is his port didn’t come up/up when you plugged the end of the cable connected to his router into the thing-ama-bob doohickey converter thingy.

We are the personnel that understand all the equipment and how it interconnects to build our network and how to talk to all the personnel operating that equipment.
We are the ones with the FM to make it all work when the operators are at their wits end, whether it be by our experience on how to operate virtually every piece of communications gear the USMC has, or by finding the answer by actually reading the TM the operator didn’t need to bring to the field. (Except Single Channel, who cares?)
We are the ones that figure out how that new box that just got fielded works into the network. The answer to the question until recently has always been, give it to TechCon they will figure it out. Now that new box has a router in it, so give it to Data…And into the closet, or onto the shelf it goes.

I think that if you were to poll the 2821/23 community you would find that we have a much stronger understanding of data networking/routing than most 0659 would like to admit. I know there are several of us that made the lateral move from Data to TechCon. Many of us have Network+, Security+, or have been through ICND I, ICND II, IP ROUTE, CISSP, or any of the other flavors of training.

End of rant, thanks for reading.

-Chris

Reply
1. John says:
  
  March 28, 2014 at 1:24 am
  
  Chris,
  Some of my best students at the CTC were Tech Controllers. I have first hand experience that some have lots of IP training and certs. I would like to have everyone on the same page that we NEED that training and figuring out a way to institutionally reinforce the learning/dedication.
  
  Reply
Chris George says:

March 28, 2014 at 12:46 am

Several of you have mentioned high GT scores. There is no GT score requirement for 282Xs, only an EL score of 115 or above. We have had Marines with a GT of 92 in the MOS and do quite well. The question remains now is whether 282Xs will remain 2800s or transfer over to the 06XX community. There is still a lot of discussion being done. In the mean time, we at I MEF are already working to answer the QoS piece. We have a couple solutions we will be testing soon and refining them. (We as in 2823) we have already ran in intro to CISCO QoS with a lot of things that must be considered in the network that is not CISCO. The UCR differs from traditional RFCs for a reason. Remember this is DoD not commercial, but the principles are the same.
Let’s not forget, packet switched networks are older than most of your parents, possibly grandparents. It’s not new technology, but more recently improved and relevant due to the technology boom in memory and processing power in the last 20 years or so.
TC goes beyond the long term goals you set. If you don’t most of that now, you are behind and have a lot of catching up to do. We also have additional tools available to us now, Solar Winds Toolset, WireShark, and the HST-3000. This is all you need to do your job, along with a lot of knowledge.

Reply
Mike Johnson says:

March 28, 2014 at 4:47 am

Yes, we want and need the Tech Con functions of planning and overall network trouble shooting (to include QoS). No, we probably don’t need the “maintainer” functions with the sunset of DTC/JECCS/DITS.

Where ever the technical control function ends up, it can’t be done without the tools and tmde (like Chris George said). Tech controllers have lived with the operators a long time, makes sense that we (the function anyway) end up there. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense for most of the 28xx to get out of their shelters and live with the operators. They can only continue “maintaining” increasingly COTS gear for so long.

Troy has some good points in his post, and I think he’ll agree when I say that a radio chief and even a switching chief have a very steep learning curve to become a communication chief in a EOIP environment.

On the other hand, I think that we keep throwing additional tasks at the 065x and think we’re creating these uber cyber warriors that are ready to handle tagging/running cable, applications, building images, VOIP, servers, LAN, WAN, etc. The reality is we have a couple of guys that can do a couple of those things extremely well, and a bunch that are ok at a thing or two, but have never even attempted the rest outside of the school house. I don’t believe that giving this group more tasks is beneficial to anybody.

So all of this ranting to say yes, we still need tech controllers, but maybe we don’t need to call them 2823s, but we still need them to do the functions that make them valuable in a network, whatever kind of network that may be.

Reply
Kevin Helmick says:

March 28, 2014 at 9:14 am

Well, I have to chime in as I was one of the 2823s responsible for creating 2821. 2821 was not created for DITS. It might seem that way, but that is incorrect. 2823 has been historically under manned. We have tried for years to maintain the Jedi ranks and it was a difficult task to say the least. Lat move was the only way to become a Jedi, and when you found yourself as the only Jedi in an MSC, such as a Wing for example, it was day on stay on. I can tell many stories of being handed something by a Comm O or Chief and told, we need this up by tomorrow. Sometimes there was a manual, but usually just a concept and you had to get it working. This was “outside the box” stuff, not your 84 van, or DTC. Technical Control is not married to any equipment, if it were we would have gone away with MOD28 and 1.2 circuits, when the 84 vans day came to an end. 2821 was created to man the wall (insert scene from a Few Good Men here), because lat move was not providing enough Jedi candidates or recruits. The only answer was to grow our own. To create a pool of individuals, basically trained on how to think like a Jedi. They don’t have light sabers yet, because the force is not strong in all of them yet. Everyone knows the Jedi’s greatest asset is how he uses his mind to control the power of the force. Now we are in the EoIP era, trust me, IP as you know it today will become antiquated and you will be having this same discussion 10 years or so from now. History repeats itself, and having MY MOS evolve 2 times previously, this is par for the course. It doesn’t change a thing. The reason the MOS belongs as a 28xx MOS is because the EL required doesn’t come from any other MOS. If the USMC had another way to feed the machine, we could try it. Jedi is here to stay. Now, the Jedi Masters out there will figure out how to best leverage their skills for the greatest advantage of the Rebellion, insert Corps here as we always do something against the grain of how comm is “supposed” to be done, and we always do it better, and with less than anyone else out there. To make a 2823 become an 0699 makes me laugh, and then cringe at the same time. What I would rather see is Comm Os hold their Comm Chiefs accountable rather than allow them to become training chiefs conducting PFTs and weigh ins instead of COMMEXs. They still need to plan, if they can’t, send them home. 2823s are abused when they are told to plan a network instead of review it. We got into the planning mode because the “planners” got tired of red ink on the plans, and Comm Os found it more timely to have us do it. So Systems Planning Engineer became a new Title for the senior 2823, and Technical Control Chief became a JEDI, and the SPE, the Jedi Master. I say all of this because the mission hasn’t changed, yet the equipment and concept of employment has again, big deal. The Technical Control function is not spelled ANALOG, DIGITAL, SERIAL, IP nor any other format or communications genre you could insert here. It’s a communications requirement to have them in CONTROL OF ALL TECHNICAL ASPECTS as related to the system of the day. Everything that goes in or out of a comm node is their responsibility like it or not. You cannot take away the source of life from maintaining the Jedi force, because all you will have accomplished is creating “job security” for the guy who has to figure out where to recruit the next Jedi from and I will tell you it took almost a decade to fix, so back off. Instead, I wish leaders would focus on what is relevant, and I see some of that here. We need to begin a new focus on IP as the transport protocol of choice today, and the WAN as a whole, with convergence and QoS as the buzz words of the day. A wheel is still round, that’s why it hasn’t been reinvented, just evolved from stone, to bronze then steel, then aluminum and now whatever alloy or material you can dream up next. Marines, the parameters have changed, but the mission has not. Lead and train your Marines. To my fellow Jedi Masters, you cannot be silenced. You have the information in front of you, and if you have lost the commanders ear, or if you are not certain of who needs to drive the bus, I suggest you take a minute to find a mirror and see what is there to see. What you see there is the one responsible for taking charge of the process. Welcome discussion anytime and with anyone when it comes to this particular subject, Communications, and the Technical Control there of. 252-571-1414 or 844-TECHCON. Semper Fidelis, and never forget, we are all on the same team with a common goal, EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS!-Kevin Retired but not dead nor unengaged.

Reply
Jesse Ford says:

March 28, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Tech Controllers will always be needed no matter the flavor or the network. As everyone here has already very well stated we are the master’s of the network that actually understand how it works and why we do things a certain way. 98% of the other folks specifically the data guys do things just because thats the way Cisco says do it. I have encountered very few data guys that understand the “WHY” behind the “DO”. Having been out of the Marine’s and working in the civilian side for 2 years now I can say the skills and approach to networking I gained from being a Tech Controller and following the lead of Kevin Helmick, Patty Mac, Chris George, Mike Johnson and others who are to many to name have benefited me well. It has made impressions that are long lasting with the Cisco, Juniper and other technology vendors I work with daily. They all state they wish every other network guy approached the network with the same view and thought process as a Tech Controller does. So for folks to say were no longer a valuable asset is a incorrect statement. I think the need is even more needed now in the world of “COTS” equipment and cookie cutter networking based on Cisco best practices. Which don’t get me wrong provide a good bit of info for sure, but as Tech Controllers we have always taken those first couple steps and then paved our own road from that point on.

As many of you have stated in your comments above we were the guys that got called in the 11th hour to make this magic new box work in the network with no real information other than the ” this is what its supposed to do” statement from whomever called us in. Were able to do this because we understand the fundamentals of how the network functions and works. Not just script and mop monkey’s that have no clue why they enter the variables that the script or cutsheet has for them and if the script is wrong then they can’t figure out what is wrong with it and what needs to be adjusted. I believe the need for understanding what those variables are and what they affect will always be there.

I have been working on the core network for Verizon Wireless for about 2 years now which could be considered a tier 0 service provider in most cases. So I have an unique perspective on the EOIP network that the Marine Corps is attempting to evolve to in the future in alot of ways. We support on average 6-9 million subscribers at any given moment on the network I support. My role here is very much akin to the Tech Controller role in the Corps. Were meant to know how all the magic happens in what we call our ” Distro Core” network. This core is made up of Juniper, Cisco, Ericsson and other vendor equipment mixed in here and there but those are the big 3 vendors. We do everything over ip here handset to handset video calls or file sharing as well as a VOIP solution as well between mobile handsets. I have learned and am still learning how to make this all come together and work and in doing that I find myself always thinking about how this could be used to benefit not only the Marine Network but also the DOD/DISN network as a whole. There will always be folks who will fight the IP evolution of the network but like Kevin said he has seen this all before as our job evolved and we evolved with it. Those who fight it will just have to move over and let the willing move forward.

I may be out of the Corps and not working DOD contracting but that does not mean I am completely detached from what is going on. I am more than willing to offer up any lessons learned and experience gained from my time at VZW that could help grow the Corps. I am also keeping my eyes and ears open for a chance to get back to working with my brothers because corporate America ” SUCKS”, sure i make good money but the wining and powdered baby bottoms get annoying. Plus you have all the HR be nice rules that get in the way of getting thing done in some aspects. So if anyone needs a busted ole Tech Controller’s help let me know, I am not the best but I will work my but off. Stay safe everyone.

Reply
Anthony Elmer says:

March 29, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Sir-

” There will always be changes, from point to point, to Satellite, to Serial connections to all VOIP and IP networking. But with those Changes there will always be a need for Tech Control.” I had my former Platoon Commander say this to me once, and I happen to agree with him. Tech Control as we know it now is just a change from Phone/Computer network repairers in the 80s and 90s, which was just a change from the Radio/phone/ computer repairers from the 70s. (note: this is all just research I did for fun on a weekend where I had time to kill, but in no way or means a personal affirmation.) The fact seems to me, Sir, that we as TechCon have had a gradual shift of priorities, but still have performed the same essential function in comm: Where there are great 06xx’s who can do their job with amazing prowess, and great 28xx’s who will maintain the equipment necessary to do so, we as TechCon are the signal moderators, the interfacers. We make everything work together, Mux, Wire, and Data. Now that being said, there is a need for such a shift yet again, from the HDX to Call Manager, from serial input to all IP based comms, but the need for us long term is still there. there will always be a need for TechCon, as Jesse said, the “Why” behind the “do”.

Reply
Michael says:

January 8, 2015 at 7:10 am

I don’t know if any of you still check this message board however if you do you should know you gents have definitely made me feel better about my up coming LM to a ‘dying MOS’ (Direct quote from perhaps 20% of the Marines I have talked to. If you have any advice as far as courses or off duty education (Taking a Cisco IP/Network crash course at the moment) to prepare myself I’m all ears. The OJT will sadly have to wait until I get my orders and an elmer. Hell I have pubs though so if you can point me to any relevant TM ‘s that would do wonders it’s not the same without the gear but it’s a start for concepts.

Reply
1. John says:
  
  January 8, 2015 at 2:22 pm
  
  I’m not a tech controller, but my recommendation would be to buy the book “Wireshark Network Analysis” and go to the CTC and take the full CCNA course. I used to instruct CCNA and CCNP and I can promise you that unless you have extensive data experience, a one week “crash course” is only going to be good for getting you the certification. As a tech controller, it will be imperative that you completely understand the basics (CCNA is great for this), but you need to go through the full course. After going through all four modules, bust out your Wireshark book and get some practice with it.
  
  Reply
  1. Michael says:
    
    January 8, 2015 at 3:08 pm
    
    I am in CCNA-1 right now I’m only calling it a crash course (bad wording I know) because that’s how it feels so far knowing that I’m almost halfway through but struggling a little. The instructors good though so with his help and doing nothing else this weekend I should be able to scrape all the knowledge in. I will have to look up that book is there software that comes with it or would a used copy work fine?
    
    Reply
    1. John says:
      
      January 8, 2015 at 3:34 pm
      
      I understand about the CCNA. Sorry for the harsh reaction, but I have consistently been asked to cover all of CCNA for Marines who can’t even subnet in four days. The Cisco Academy is great, and there is nothing stopping you from going back through the material as many times as necessary to “get it”. I remember I went through the spanning-tree section at least three times before it even began to make sense to me. As for the book, a used copy should be fine. I’ve had tech controllers pick that up, and with VERY minimal guidance, do some really impressive things.
      
      Reply
Michael says:

January 8, 2015 at 4:06 pm

I’ll try to put the book on order tonight. What do you mean by spanning tree? The layers? If so that’s kind of what’s kicking my ass as well as just which protocols I need to worry about how they actually interact and the framing/encapsulation. Of course the extra acronyms don’t help.

Reply
Etienne Sullivan says:

November 7, 2015 at 10:54 pm

I just found this post while working on my ‘detailed’ resume. Not sure if any of y’all are still talking about this, but I figured I’d offer my 2 cents. I too, was a 2823; I am now a DoD contractor.

I too, would highly recommend that current TechCons start getting extra training/education. It seems to me that we are being absorbed by two fields: microwave technicians, and network communications technicians. In the Corps, techcon was separate from microwave was separate from the data geeks. Not so in the contractor/civilian world. I am looking to move states in a few years, so I am currently knee-deep in job research. My first instinct was to look at ‘network tech’ jobs. I am hitting wall after wall: prospective employers LOVE my network jedi experience, but they want me to be a CCNA as well. Luckily, I have been OJT’d as a uwave tech, and those job searches are going much better.

Oh, and one more thing: go earn, at least your ASEET (Associate of Sciences Electronics Engineering Technology) degree. Your Marine Corps training/experience may get you in the door, but the young punks with a 2yr degree will be nipping at your heels when it comes time for raises/promotions. There are even BSEET degrees out there now. I am almost finished with my ASEET, and I have 17yrs experience in the 28xx field, but I have now heard, more than once, “With your experience, you should really consider continuing your education and earning your Bachelor’s degree. Then you could easily be considered for our Supervisor positions.”

Just a head’s up.

Reply
Joseph Hayes says:

December 17, 2015 at 9:55 am

My son was assigned 2821 yesterday and I’d appreciate an update on where this MOS is going. I’m an Army Network Management Technician Warrant Officer, having started off as an enlisted SatCom Repairman. Throughout my 30-year career, I’ve transitioned from FCC-98s and FCC-100s to IDNXs and Prominas to IP, so I know the value of staying relevant. Though most of my work is now with switches, routers, and call managers (and I have CCNA and CCNA Security), I’m still called on to troubleshoot serial data issues over microwave and FDMA satellite. I know my Jedi training will serve me far into the future.

Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply