You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
The Navy Gets Ugly
2006-03-28
March 28, 2006: The U.S. Navy's new computer network is so unfriendly that many sailors and marines are communicating via commercial email accounts. How can this be?
The navy has spent over $8 billion to connect nearly 400,000 PCs into one large, and secure (all data is encrypted) Internet like network. This will provide high speed, hassle free communications for everyone involved. At least in theory. This effort is called the NMCI (Navy Marine Corps Intranet) project. After six years of effort, users have a growing list of complaints. For example, because the navy found that there were over 100,000 different bits of (previously unknown) software being used on navy PCs, making the new network function at all proved much more difficult than anticipated.. Some of these 100,000 program were created by sailors to make their work easier, but the navy never really knew about this home brew stuff. At least not until they tried to get all navy PCs to communicate as a form of super-Internet. Initially, all the disruption caused by standardizing PC operating systems and software upset a lot of users. In late 2003, some 50 percent of navy PC users were unhappy with NMCI. But by early 2004, 60 percent were satisfied, and as of June, 2004, 80 percent were satisfied. However, the improvement was not all it appeared to be. Users were asked to rank their satisfaction on a 1 (not) to 10 (very) scale. Anyone who comes in at 5.5 or higher, on average, was considered "satisfied." In reality, most users are not happy with NMCI. Users don't like the idea that they have lost some control over their PC (which now has a lot of network standards to conform to), and that their computers are slower now because of all the network software.

Ultimately, the Department of Defense wants all the services to be able to communicate with each other quickly, easily and at high speed via a special military Internet. But first, each service has to get all of its own people working together. In the navy, this is not working. This failure has been something of a dirty little secret. No sailors or marines wanted to risk their careers by going public about it. That is, except for a navy reservist who happens to be a member of Congress. That would be Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois. He's a reserve officer, and he made public the "user unfriendly" nature of NMCI, and how sailors and marines use civilian Internet resources to avoid having to use the new navy network. Over the next three years, the navy plans to spend some $3.2 billion on NMCI. The navy says it will make NMCI more user friendly. Eventually.
Posted by:Steve

#6  Anonymoose sayeth: "Remember when corporations used to inspect for employees who would bring their Macintosh to work, because they could do their job so much better on it, than on a networked IBM?"

Oh, you bet I remember. I'm the guy that took 'em out back and shot 'em. Do you know how easy it was to kill a network with Apple Talk!? :) Same thing with IPX on Netware. Notice how they both utilize IP now?

You make some good points and I don't totally disagree with you. Individual initiative and innovation should be encouraged and rewarded for sure and an oppressive bureaucratic process shouldn't stifle it. But you take the winning innovations and adapt them to be compatible with the network as a whole. If the greatest thing since sliced bread kills the network, nobody gets any bread. How efficient is that? Dicking around with a very large scale network, even on a localized level, can set off a catastrophic event cascade. Believe me. I've been there, done that and got the burnt comm gear to prove it.
Posted by: psychohillbilly   2006-03-28 14:33  

#5  psychohillbilly: actually both.

Not just the bureaucratic process, but as you said, "standardization is critical to network efficiency."

But that is network efficiency, not individual efficiency.

I see it as like the old argument of speed vs. maneuverability in aircraft. The more stadardized you make the network, the less diverse it becomes, almost by definition.

Remember when corporations used to inspect for employees who would bring their Macintosh to work, because they could do their job so much better on it, than on a networked IBM? They *wanted* to do a better job than the network would allow.

Even today, many corporations routinely confiscate "non-standard hardware" used by people to do their job better, but that is not compatible with the business hardware and software they use. It is a Dilbert-esque nightmare.

So, in the final analysis, network standardization is great for the people upstairs, who work with a limited number of variables to produce similar outcomes. The people down the chain end up having to be forced to "make it fit", even when it is clearly inefficient and inappropriate. And they know a better way.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-03-28 13:37  

#4  Wow! You mean that if you encrypt every bit, the processing efficiency goes down? Who would have thought of that? ;)

That's why I have a love/hate relationship with firewalls, or as I call them, LIDs (Latency Introduction Devices).

Anonymoose, if you are talking about bureaucratic process, then I'm in agreement. But if you're talking about technology/communications, I've got to disagree at bit. Decentralization increases processing power and efficiency, but as a network scales upward, standardization is critical to network efficiency. Otherwise, you spend all your resources on maintaining a patchwork quilt of a network trying to accommodate a million one-offs.

Pyscho Hillbilly Network Design Engineer
Slayer of Routing Loops
Buyer of Doughnuts on Fridays
Posted by: psychohillbilly   2006-03-28 12:57  

#3  NMCI is a piece of crap!

However, the article is wrong on one point. When you are in NMCI, you cannot use a commercial e-mail account like Yahoo, AOL or Hotmail; the system blocks it. If you want to do that, you'll have to step outside the building and find an Internet cafe.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2006-03-28 10:05  

#2  In computing, networking and decentralization have two different functions. The function of networking is communications, the function of decentralization is individual efficiency and security.

In truth you cannot have the best of both worlds, and for a logical reason. People can either focus on the task at hand, or they can focus on communicating something with other people.

You can either bake a cake, or argue with a hundred people about *how* you should bake a cake. Reaching agreements, consensus, approvals, and going through the rest of the "process". This shoots the heck out of efficiency and security.

Invariably, people will know a "better way" of doing something than what is available on the network, and individually efficient, they will use that to give themselves better results. But that will conflict with the network.

In other words, this system is doomed to less-than-satisfactory results.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-03-28 09:28  

#1  Fred can start the Navy project just as soon as he gets the FBI systems whipped into shape.
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-03-28 09:26  

00:00