First off, documentation:

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/programs/emergency-services/operations-support/government-emergency-telecommunications-service-gets

Second, let's talk about GETS, WPS, and why EVERY CAP MEMBER THAT IS CONSIDERED MISSION DEPLOYABLE SHOULD HAVE GETS/WPS.

To be clear, I have GETS/WPS through another agency so this isn't me whining because I don't have a shiny object. I took the initiative to get GETS/WPS through another agency because:

1. During my command tenure I got an email from National Comms about "Paths to Commanders" and making sure that commanders were always available to get orders from higher echelons. It's focus was on HF, but the principle remains: Commanders and their subordinates at all levels need to be reachable if they are intending to be mission deployable.

2. CAP's GETS initiative is one of the worst implementations in the nation. To the point where talking with GETS coordinators about it usually results in incredulity. The main points that are beyond belief are:
    a. That CAP is eligible for GETS, but we haven't put in the paperwork for WPS eligibility.
    b. That CAP restricts GETS so severely that only a handful of cards are issued in each state.
    c. CAP's application portal is so old that it references the now-defunct NCS that was rolled into DHS.
    d. Requiring GETS holders to report usage or be responsible for charges? Not a thing with any other agency. Also works against the policy of regular testing of the GETS program for users.
    e. The most likely people to need GETS are under the current implementation the least likely people to have it.

3. COVID-19 stressed the entire communications network at various points and times. I personally had my first fast-busy signals in over a decade last year. Online tools reached their licensing limits and fell down. Those that were prepared were able to overcome these limitations. Those that were not, could not. My squadron had its first major taskings occur due to our preparedness which included getting access to things like GETS in advance and practicing use of these and other tools, even when we went outside of CAP to get them.


So, how can we solve the GETS/WPS connundrum?

I see 2 ways of doing it.

1. GETS Stockpile cards and administrative cards.
Stockpile cards are authorized and encouraged for mission deployment needs. GETS cards for commanders and deputy commanders at all levels.

2. Authorize WPS for all members.
All WPS charges are billed to the account the cellphone that has WPS on it, NOT the agency that issues it.

While GETS can be used in conjunction with WPS, you can still issue those with little problem to the administrative, operations, and tactical teams that need them without any major headache at NHQ other than someone finally giving up on the old strategy.

Remember folks: "That's The Way We Always Have Done Things" is the enemy of innovation.

I'll save my Firstnet screed for a later post.

But seriously, I hope someone at NHQ reads this and does something about it because it is a VERY simple fix with a conversation with a coordinator and if we can't fix this, we surely won't be able to fix much else.

Yeah.  No.

The practical reality is they are essentially useless in a CAP context,
and further CAP members do not fall into the category of leadership and responders that
REMOTELY need it.

Any CAP unit or wing that is legitimately in a first or early-responder situation
with actual government agencies will have access to the tools they need to communicate
with both that agency and internally (including GETS/WPS), and if they don't, they
aren't as important to that agency as they think they are.

And yeah, I had GETS for years.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 16, 2021, 04:35:40 PMYeah.  No.

The practical reality is they are essentially useless in a CAP context,
and further CAP members do not fall into the category of leadership and responders that
REMOTELY need it.

Any CAP unit or wing that is legitimately in a first or early-responder situation
with actual government agencies will have access to the tools they need to communicate
with both that agency and internally (including GETS/WPS), and if they don't, they
aren't as important to that agency as they think they are.

And yeah, I had GETS for years.

Your locality and experience isn't transitive to the entire national squadron presence. Furthermore at the most recent PCR communications conference they took the time to have a GETS/WPS coordinator do a presentation on GETS/WPS and why CAP should have it.

If you want to make the argument that PCR people have a specific and unique
need, good on you. 

That's different from...

Quote from: Holding Pattern on December 16, 2021, 06:29:00 AMEVERY CAP MEMBER THAT IS CONSIDERED MISSION DEPLOYABLE SHOULD HAVE GETS/WPS

Which they decidedly should not. Especially considering that "deployment" is not a CAP "thing".
Members have ratings and go or do not go based on the day of the week, and even that isn't tracked.
Every member with an ES rating is equal in that regard.

And considering that this is already a discussion point at your Region level, obviously NHQ is aware.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 16, 2021, 06:14:35 PMIf you want to make the argument that PCR people have a specific and unique
need, good on you. 

That's different from...

Quote from: Holding Pattern on December 16, 2021, 06:29:00 AMEVERY CAP MEMBER THAT IS CONSIDERED MISSION DEPLOYABLE SHOULD HAVE GETS/WPS

Which they decidedly should not. Especially considering that "deployment" is not a CAP "thing".
Members have ratings and go or do not go based on the day of the week, and even that isn't tracked.
Every member with an ES rating is equal in that regard.

And considering that this is already a discussion point at your Region level, obviously NHQ is aware.

"Deployment" "Activation" or whatever cute word you want to call it when a CAP member gets assigned to an AFAM and is involved on disaster response or SAR missions, CAPNHQ has repeatedly made it clear through its communications and COMMEXs that they want their mission ready members and commanders to be reachable.

Quote from: Holding Pattern on December 16, 2021, 06:17:33 PM"Deployment" "Activation" or whatever cute word

That's your term from the OP.

To be fair, that is a perfectly good English word that means "to spread out, arrange or utilize for a deliberate purpose" and is hopefully descriptive of the happens to CAP personnel during missions.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 16, 2021, 06:29:46 PM

Quote from: Holding Pattern on December 16, 2021, 06:17:33 PM"Deployment" "Activation" or whatever cute word

That's your term from the OP.

Yes. It's a viable term. Your dislike of it is non-relevant if you can't come up with a better one.

OK, folks, let's keep it civil, and try not to nit-pick the semantics.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 16, 2021, 04:35:40 PMYeah.  No.

The practical reality is they are essentially useless in a CAP context,
and further CAP members do not fall into the category of leadership and responders that
REMOTELY need it.

Any CAP unit or wing that is legitimately in a first or early-responder situation
with actual government agencies will have access to the tools they need to communicate
with both that agency and internally (including GETS/WPS), and if they don't, they
aren't as important to that agency as they think they are.

And yeah, I had GETS for years.

The perenial department of NO. Predictable.