Thoughts on Mandatory Issued Govt Cell-Phones for All

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:02:53 -0400

What are your thoughts if you were issued (including every service member in the US Military) a cell phone at the expense of the government? The only catch is that you are obligated to answer all calls and emails in a timely manner.

Would such an issued phone assist you with your work-load? I have come across several service members who they had one (due to cost on their end) and some who dread the current BB cellphones that are issued. If it was mandatory, what suggestions would you have to make it a workable policy?

Do you support the mandatory issue of a wearable watch such as Pebble, the rumored iWatch, or a Moto 360 to help keep track of all the calls and emails?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 9:07 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:07:48 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member . This seems like risky business making everyone so easily trackable by opposition traffic analysis. Anyway, the standard GSM A5/# encryption algorithm is deeply flawed and the available devices are not tempest certified. GSM phones are so very highly susceptible to multiple attacks including opposition owned switches. The General Dynamics Sectera with Type 1 Encryption at $2,000+ per unit may be too costly to field so broadly. I would also worry about potential loss or other compromise with so many units in the field.

Warmest Regards, Sandy

http://www.gdc4s.com/sectera-wireless-gsm-phone?taxonomyCat=141

http://cryptome.org/gsm-crack-bbk.pdf

Sectéra Wireless GSM Phone

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 9:14 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:14:18 -0400

Sir:

On one hand, it would solve the issue of Junior Enlisted who claim that since the Army doesn't pay for their personal mobile devices, they do not have to carry it or answer certain calls (from supervisors). If the phones were GPS tracked (which I have no doubt they would be for both accountability and personnel tracking) it would cut down on Soldiers claiming to be one place when they are somewhere else. (Note: I am NOT in favor of anyone being tracked by the gov't.)

On the other hand, having just completed my assignment supporting UFG 2014, I was issued a gov't mobile phone. I didn't like it. It had a different charging system than my personal phone (so I had to drag along an additional charger), it was additional piece of gear that I had to carry, and sometimes the NCOIC would call me on my personal phone to tell me to call him on the gov't phone (I was thinking, WTF, just tell me what you have to tell me, as I am already talking to you!)

I think the best solution would be to give Soldiers a mobile communication allowance each month, like the gov't does with BAH for housing, or BAS for groceries. That way, leaders can say that since the Soldier is receiving money to pay for a mobile commo device, the Army IS paying for their phone, and they MUST answer it and have it on them. This will likely save the Army money that would be spent on (usually overpriced) phones. There would be less hassle with trying to keep accountability of gov't property, and Soldiers tend to take care of their own property better than gov't property (although I know that is not a hard and fast rule.)

So perhaps the Army can figure out a monthly allowance for mobile communication devices. I think this is the best solution between tracking Soldiers and issuing gov't property to every Soldier.

So where's my Bronze Star?

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 9:17 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:17:14 -0400

Didn't the SCOTUS rule that civilians had to be compensated for answering work related calls after their duty day? I wonder how (if at all) that would apply to the military. I know we are technically obligated to be available 24/7 so maybe I am answering my own question. However, as rare as it is, it is great when you don't have to bring work home with you. I know that also depends on your specific duties. I also understand the government pays a huge amount of money for "work" BBs and cell phones.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 6 at 2014 9:56 PM

SGT Richard H. — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:56:29 -0400

I think the Government would end up either paying for...or issuing statements of charges for tons of data overages.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Sep 6 at 2014 10:09 PM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:09:23 -0400

As a leader, I already feel obligated to answer all calls and messages.

Considering how awful the Army is with tech stuff (AKO, Army Core, non-stop computer re-imaging), I feel they would waste a lot of money on cell phones that aren't worth using.

Not to mention the ability of Big Brother to track your every move.

Response by SFC Nestor Nievesmoran made Sep 6 at 2014 10:21 PM

SFC Nestor Nievesmoran — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:21:35 -0400

Nothing is given for free to all hard working and taxpayers Americans, specially by the government. Another way to track and control.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 6 at 2014 10:21 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:21:59 -0400

As with all electronic gagetry its going to triple your workload with everybody expecting you to work as fast as your mobile device does. Good thought though. So how long will it take to vet the contract, add 19 more security layers, James Bond-a-size it so the thing can double as a grenade launcher and get it into service 20, 25 years tops?

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Sep 6 at 2014 10:39 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:39:15 -0400

Waste of government money.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Sep 6 at 2014 10:43 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:43:38 -0400

The military doesn't need to issue its leaders smartphones since the vast majority of them already have one. It would be great if we could just access our email on our existing phones. Nobody wants to carry two phones around.

If the military did issue a new phone, it might be a bit like this rumored iPhone PRC-5D. It is said to be a modified iPhone that connects to a 3-foot external tape antenna and uses a 5590 battery. Comes with a standby battery life to up to 2 hours, 10 minutes while talking, and weighs a mere 4 pounds. Courtesy of the Duffel Blog.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/03/leaked-photo-apples-new-military-smartphone-iphone-prc-5d/

Is This A Leaked Photo Of Apple's New Military Smartphone, The iPhone PRC-5D?

CUPERTINO — Service members are abuzz today as a photo alleged to be an image of a military version of the popular Apple iPhone 5 was leaked on the Internet late Saturday. The picture appears to show a ruggedized olive drab iPhone, with a 3-foot external tape antenna and what appears to be a 5590 …

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 11:14 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 23:14:11 -0400

I have a perfectly good cell phone. If a soldier truly can't pay for a cell bill (and they can get really expensive!), I don't see much of a problem. However, unless that government phone comes with an electric shock app, a phone is a phone. If somebody wants to ignore the call, they will.
My husband owns a Pebble. He loves it. I think it's overkill considering he already has his cell on him anyway, but whatever.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 6 at 2014 11:21 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 23:21:22 -0400

I'm waiting on the implant.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2014 11:27 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 23:27:05 -0400

Don't know how you would justify it with all the reductions happening. Need to figure out how to keep all the good individuals that we are losing first and foremost. I think everyone that needs one for the most part has one.

Response by SSgt John Carroll made Sep 6 at 2014 11:59 PM

SSgt John Carroll — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 23:59:21 -0400

Well if the Telecommunications Act '96 (military discount) actually applied to everyone in all situations it wouldn't even be an idea worth debating, since most of us already have phones. By this I mean if you are married, to get that discount & be able to turn your phone off during deployments you have to have separate billing; no family plans/ shared minutes, data or anything through the phone company, which is more expensive when you are home-station. Unless you sign a new contract every time you leave & return.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 12:19 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 00:19:41 -0400

The Army says that we're 24/7 - then you get a blackberry and you become 25/8.

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Sep 7 at 2014 12:37 AM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 00:37:36 -0400

It is not necessary. There are very few people that need to be able to be gotten a hold of at all times. Additionally I work enough during duty hours and don't need my family time interrupted.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 12:41 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 00:41:12 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member - Wow, that would really suck because everyone would be controlled all the time. For an ORI or mobility it would be useful but I am always leery of technology, if only because of the potential for abuse. Like, business schemes or hackers. MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca SSG V. Michelle Woods 1LT Sandy Annala CPT Carrie Papproth

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Sep 7 at 2014 3:15 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 03:15:04 -0400

DOD Obamaphones!! "Id like 4 million phones and 10GB to share please" "how about after were done here, this is the food court"

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 4:27 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 04:27:31 -0400

I had a cheap little gov provided cell phone when I was deployed and I do not want one ever again. If anyone in my squadron needs to get a hold of me (stateside) they have my personal number.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 7 at 2014 6:44 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 06:44:16 -0400

"Resistance it futile" we are Borg, err, DoD.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 7:13 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:13:37 -0400

I object too. The project is way too costly for at least half a million SMs. Frequent break downs, maintenance costs, and tremendous room for abuse. Not to mention 'big brother' stigma or evolution to this:

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 7:29 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:29:03 -0400

I have a few thoughts:
1. Why does the government need to spend money on something nearly everyone has already? Certainly all but the most curmugeonly leaders have a cell phone.

2. I "have to" answer immediately? This seems a poor substitute for leading the way you are supposed to - by being seen doing your job and setting the example. While a great tool for expediency, "leadership by text message" is not leadership and should never substitute for face to face interaction.

3. I don't think there is a benefit to being that accessible. I resisted getting a cell phone well into the 2000s for exactly that reason. My quote at the time was "if I am not at home or at work, I am not meant to be found". I have since softened that stance - having children and being in a primary leadership position will do that - but I still think that nearly every call I take from home while at work or from work when I am at home are both bad news and can keep until tomorrow.
The exceptions are rare indeed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 9:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:05:54 -0400

waste of funds plus the reg says we cant walk and talk at the same time and all that stuff so to me it sounds pointless. Also by now everyone should have a smart/stupid phone.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Sep 7 at 2014 9:50 AM

CPO Jon Campbell — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:50:45 -0400

When I think back on the 5 times I was activated in the reserve, the one common problem was always communications. When I looked at a roster the last time I was activated there were area codes from 7 different states. Some people had phones with coverage, some didn't. Some could text, some couldn't. What was frustrating for me was that the government expected me to have a cell phone. I had one before I was activated, but it was a work phone and I had to turn it in when I got called up. If a cell phone is going to be a required piece of equipment and it has to have features like text and data and coverage for areas you don't live in and aren't likely to be in very long, it should be provided by the government.

Response by TSgt Terry Hudson made Sep 7 at 2014 10:07 AM

TSgt Terry Hudson — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:07:20 -0400

Waste of money! Everyone has a cellphone now-a-days I see no point in it except for CO, XO, and 1stSgt. That money could be put toward something a little more useful like education, issuing new uniforms to deploying or returning troops, or assistance loans. It could go toward something that would actually help us!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 10:16 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:16:36 -0400

Hi, Captain.

Everyone already has a cell phone and an email account. And it’s getting harder and harder to find a “dumb” cell phone; one incapable of receiving e-mail or detailed text messages. Why not just leverage the architecture already in place, instead of building a new one?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 12:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 12:35:41 -0400

complete waste of government funds. not to mention all the trouble service members will get in for improper use of government equipment.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Sep 7 at 2014 12:46 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 12:46:38 -0400

Every service member will be issued a new phone to be used IN CONUS and if Deployed will be issued the second for OCONUS use.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 2:58 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:58:30 -0400

If something like that got implemented, I see the divorce rates getting higher and soldiers being miserable.

Response by SFC Seth King made Sep 7 at 2014 4:28 PM

SFC Seth King — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 16:28:58 -0400

I support it for section leaders and above at current costs. If the cost could be substantially lowered I would support for all.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Sep 7 at 2014 8:59 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 20:59:42 -0400

Couple things. I wouldn't want to wear that ridiculous bulky and ugly thing on my wrist.

Sure, I will take a free smart phone though.

Ultimately, this isn't going to work for the lower enlisted who live in the barracks (At least at Ft. Campbell, brick and metal buildings, no signal at all)

Response by PO1 Shannon Drosdak made Sep 7 at 2014 10:19 PM

PO1 Shannon Drosdak — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 22:19:34 -0400

Honestly it would be a bonus. If you didn't respond in a timely manor in a supervisor position where I have worked you were in deep sh*t. I was out of the office more than I was in it so the only way to get a hold of me was call or text. If the government wanted to pay my bill that's one less bill I have to pay. I had one guy who checked in tell someone he didn't have a cell phone, the response to him was "well you better get one and quick shipmate you're on call 24/7" his response was "are you gonna pay my bill?" Oh he had a bad day that day. Personally I'd rather keep myself from having any issues and have one.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 1:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 01:54:09 -0400

Here is my thoughts on the issue. First the pros of what you are proposing. I understand that thought process behind what you are saying here and I think that it would be a great idea. Now for the list of why I do not think it is in any way shape or form feasible.
1. You are proposing the ENTIRE force. This is something that is not feasible, we in mechanized or even now in SBCT's cannot even get the parts that we need "due to budget constraints." So, we add in a totally new and when all is said and done horribly expensive proposition. Next problem when you look at the soldiers that we would be issuing these too, I have a tough enough time ensuring that my NCOs are ensuring that they keep track of their OCIE. Add something other than a phone that they have to pay for and feel personally responsible for, then it is something that they will lose almost guaranteed.
2. So, if we bump it to ONLY SGT or SSG and above then you are talking a costly proposition, yet this is something where the more responsible group (in theory) but now you are not hitting your total target group that you were wanting.

So, I think in general the IDEA is a good idea. The REALITY of it (at least from what my 11 years of dealing with these guys has shown me) is that it simply would not work.

As far as what you are talking about making there a time period that people have to respond in a certain period of time, that is something that is just put into their weekend counseling's. After all, we are in the Army, we are Soldiers 24/7 yes we have weekends but at the end of the day, when all is said and done we are still on call. If our respective units are told that we are being sent to another country to fight, they do not wait until our "time off" is up before they send us. Regardless, when a leader calls you, there needs to be a certain amount of urgency in returning that call or text, if they do not have it then they need to be made to understand it.

That's my take on it, both versions of the topic.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 8 at 2014 8:51 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:51:42 -0400

We already do that on deployments and I think that is where it is needed. In Garrison it wouldn't be a good idea. Just an added budgetary requirement in the era of constraint budgets. Top three at each level maybe (Co, BN, BDE) but not for the entire formation.

Response by LTC Stewart Stephenson made Sep 8 at 2014 9:08 AM

LTC Stewart Stephenson — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:08:18 -0400

Honestly, the benefit to cost/risk ratio is just way too high. Sure, you could reach out to everyone any time, any where. But...at what cost?

Presuming a an active end strength of 490K (from: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121771):

If you lowball it and say $50 per phone, that comes to $24.5M in hardware alone. That number jumps to $52.1M for the total force (strength taken from the same article.) Now, consider the contract for service and replacement for lost, stolen or damaged phones? (The DC metro recovers an average of from 300 to 450 cell phones a MONTH)

Incidentally, your comment about email capability implies a smart phone, so you can realistically probably double that dollar figure.)

Next, how much time/energy will be used to identify patterns of personal use/abuse of the government phones? Ask anyone who has spent time in recruiting command.

What about our key civilian personnel? We rely on many of them to the same degree we rely on military leaders. Do we give them phones? Do we pay them for the time they spend answering emails "off the clock" because there is a spoken or implied command expectation of immediate contact around the clock?

Let's think about OPSEC as well. Some may recall a story about local pizza delivery stores being alerted that something was happening during Desert Storm because of a large number of delivery orders to the Pentagon. Not sure if that's true or not, but wouldn't a spike in the use of government cells (e.g. an alert) be a key indicator? Also, as others have noted, anything that can be encrypted, an be decrypted. The potential for classified spillage is extremely high -- it shouldn't be, but it happens, even with senior personnel.

Sorry, but the cost and risk just aren't worth the reward. Most of our people already have a cell phone and the good old recall roster works quite well.

Article View

Official website for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 11:14 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:14:25 -0400

I can just see how that would go.

Let's say there's some sort of swingers' convention going on, and a member with one of these phones goes there for the weekend, when they're off duty. Someone with an axe to grind could get them charged with adultery, even if they went there WITH their spouse.

I live in Alexandria VA, and most of my relatives live within a 50 mile radius of Providence, RI.... if I were still active duty, I could see me walking in Monday morning to a supervisor saying "So, Chief, how was your weekend with the family? I see you went to Rhode Island this past weekend." Oh HELL no!

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Sep 8 at 2014 1:11 PM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:11:28 -0400

I don't want the Army to issue me anything else, ever. Especially a cell phone. Who I call or text is my business, not the Army's. Sure as hell they'd track calls and locations.

Response by COL Randall C. made Sep 8 at 2014 4:17 PM

COL Randall C. — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 16:17:09 -0400

I'm more of a fan of a mandatory disconnect. Even without a government issued phone (I turned my in about a year ago when the Army cut a large portion of the BBs out there after a black-eye from a DoD IG report), I'm too connected at home with smart-phones, EE OWA, etc.

Leadership is TOO connected at times. Power down and allow 1st line/2nd line leaders to react to a situation and handle it at their level before you call me with stuff that should have never come onto my radar screen.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 4:41 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 16:41:15 -0400

I have one. It's a blackberry, so it blows, but trust me...you don't want one. It allows email use...that's pretty much all it's good for. I could use it to reduce the cost on my personal phone, but I'm only going to have this one while I'm in this job, so it's not worth everyone using my blackberry number. Besides...look at the government credit card problem. We make everyone get those...and that's gone swimmingly.

Response by MSG Sean Francis made Sep 8 at 2014 7:43 PM

MSG Sean Francis — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:43:41 -0400

Wouldn't this make you a target? I used to have a cell phone for recruiting and whenever it rang it just made me apprehensive. Complete waste of money considering the Army is "broke" financially.

Response by SSgt James Connolly made Sep 8 at 2014 11:12 PM

SSgt James Connolly — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 23:12:30 -0400

WTF are you crazy, having a leash attached to you is crazy,What if your tagging someone and don't know it's the C>O>'s wife or daughter

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Sep 9 at 2014 5:21 AM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:21:26 -0400

NO!!!!!

The cost would be astronomical, the phones would be abused, and the replacement costs would be high. We don't need to spend money on unnecessary things!!!!!!!

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Sep 9 at 2014 11:26 AM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:26:18 -0400

Answer every call and text immediately? But then how could we skate?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2014 11:30 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:30:20 -0400

Definite NO! to that, CPT. Phones are easily misplaced or broken, and one that is paid for by the USG would not be "yours", and therefore not subjected to the best care. Yes, we could paycheck troops for phone damages, but try and prove that mine was damaged due to negligence, and yours was damaged due to pure happenstance.

Logistically, it would be a nightmare. MILLIONS of phones to track, maintain, and pay the monthly bills for. I'd be more open to everyone being issued a CAC-reader. Those are more cost-effective and useless without a CAC, and there are some that are commercially available for iPhones.

And - it's already been said numerous times - 90% of our Brothers and Sisters already have smartphones, and I'm fairly sure 100% of us feel we get issued enough crap as it is.

Response by PO1 David A Moore made Sep 9 at 2014 12:29 PM

PO1 David A Moore — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 12:29:11 -0400

Isn't this a little like Big brother is watching? I see a big white elephant if something like this comes about. How would you pay for all of them and does every member in the military get one? Good Greif I can't fathom how much that would cost. What happens when they get lost and or stolen, because you know that will happen just like other gear gets lost and stolen. Nothing like helping the enemy out by them having the technology to access command emails and such.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 2:34 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:34:49 -0400

I would have to say (without any solid data) that the majority of service members already have a cell phone. If your only point is to get ahold of people then it doesn't have to be a smartphone. If the major point is that the young'uns can't afford it then give us a bigger break on the cell service (you know, the thing you have to pay monthly for). On AT&T we currently are under a FAN with a 15% discount only on a single line. That could be expanded and I have seen some companies offer a 25% discount on service. There is no reason for the government to fit the bill for the devices and the service.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Sep 19 at 2014 12:30 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:30:40 -0400

All - IMHO if you are in the military you need to have reliable and secure communications. Therefore service members should be able to encrypt their calls when required. I have just the thing, it is a little device I worked on when I was in the military serving on the SecNav/CNO's secure communication team. The Navajo I or KY-40, is it ok if I use Navajo?