Revolutionary advances in microelectronics and computer technology that marked the last few decades of the 20th century gave a powerful boost to information and telecommunications technologies. Fundamentally new devices for the handling, communication and storage of information have been developed, and integration processes have intensified to merge primary and secondary networks in a unified multiservice system offering a broad range of services to users.

Pursuant to its strategic plans for joining the global information community, the Government of the Russian Federation approved, in 2000-2001, Concept of Development of Telecommunications Services Market of the Russian Federation for 2001-2010, federal targeted programs "Electronic Russia" and "Development of Unified Educational Information Sphere for 2002-2006," and Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation. On the whole, the above documents envisage development and large-scale introduction of advanced infocommunications technologies in Russia.

The Armed Forces communications network tackles a considerable portion of its tasks by using resources of Unified National Telecommunications Network, primarily its trunk lines and channels, as well as special-purpose networks. The latter substantially lag in their development behind that of general-purpose networks, for which there is a number of reasons.

First, special-purpose networks are, as before, a monopoly environment, their development regulated by several directive documents: Concept of Development of Weapons, Military and Special Equipment, State Weapons Program, as well as state defense order. At the same time, the latter factor is of dynamic nature and directly depends on current financial capabilities this country enjoys in the short term, and military-political priorities consequent on real international situation.

Second, it is the state in the person of its agent (Ministry of Defense of Russia, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, other ministries and agencies) that is the customer (purchaser) with regard to concrete equipment. The practice of equipment supply tenders for state needs confirms that suppliers will keep their monopoly on science-intensive products in the foreseeable future, primarily in view of the limited amount of the state order (not more than 5% of the total production), and insufficient financial capabilities distinguishing potential equipment suppliers, something that prevents them from running in new advanced equipment models. Given favorable circumstances, anything like real competitive environment is likely to take shape only by the end of 2010, when such factors as nationwide general economic improvement and accomplishment of the main aims of the military reform will really produce effect.

To produce priority practical proposals on how to deal with this lag and devise a unified concept, the staff of the Chief of Signal Service of the RF Armed Forces drew up Concept for the Conversion of the Russian Federation Armed Forces Communications System to Digital Information Communication and Switching Methods, Targeted Comprehensive Program of Works to Effect Stage-by-Stage Conversion of the Russian Federation Armed Forces Primary Communications Network to Digital Telecommunications Equipment, and Program of Stage-by-Stage Conversion of Secondary Communications Networks of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, Other Troops and Military Units of the Russian Federation to Digital Information Handling and Services Equipment.

These documents represent a system of views on how to form the main precepts enabling stage-by-stage conversion of the Armed Forces communications system to digital information handling methods. This will make it possible to pool capacities of the communications systems incorporated in the RF Armed Forces command and control circuit into a unified general-purpose resource and to build up a digital network using channel switching or packet switching methods depending on type of info relayed and necessary array of technical services and user services that needs to be organized. A priority in this respect is creating a unified automated digital general-purpose communications system which has within its structure an integrated digital territorial communications system of the RF Armed Forces, digital field communications systems of strategic, operational-strategic and operational formations, and communications assets of specialized communications systems.

To implement the stage-by-stage conversion, RF Armed Forces communications networks and centers plan to use home-produced digital equipment and systems, as well as imported equipment without analogues in Russia.

At the same time, the telecommunications equipment market has changed fundamentally over the last decade, as has the environment in which domestic producers operate. The former shortage of advanced telecommunications equipment was made good by big Western companies such as Alcatel (France), Siemens (Germany), Ericsson (Sweden), Philips (Holland), Cisco Systems (U.S.), Sony, NEC, Panasonic (Japan), and others. Possessing high scientific potential, major production capacities turning out competitive equipment, and sufficient circulating and borrowed capital, these firms gained the greater part (up to 70-80%) of the Russian market.

General Motors (GM) has used three different theft deterrent systems, but they are all passive, meaning its activation is automatic. It's operated by communication between a control unit and the ignition key through the ignition switch. If the switch is vandalized, if it's operated with the wrong key or if the Class 2 communication link is disrupted, the engine won't start.

Any time the theft-deterrent system causes an unwanted no-start, chances are it's a simple communication breakdown. To find it, you need to understand how the system detects theft and how it prevents engine starting. What you will find here is information about GM's Passkey I and Passkey II theft deterrent systems, along with a few tips provided by our Troubleshooting Editor Roy Ripple.

We've concentrated on these systems because Roy tells us these are the systems that generate the most help requests. He also says the problem is usually just a faulty connection, botched accessory installation or even just a worn out key or ignition lock cylinder. These can be easy to troubleshoot, because all you need is a wiring diagram, a DVOM and knowledge of how the system is supposed to work.

OPERATING STRATEGY

The Vehicle Anti Theft System (VATS) was first installed on the 1985 Corvette. The Personal Anti-theft Security System (PASSkey) replaced VATS in 1988, and while there are some differences, VATS and Passkey I and II all work the same way. There is no radio communication involved; the system merely looks for the ignition key's unique electronic signature. Passkey III and the newer Passlock systems were introduced in 1998, but the earlier systems weren't completely phased out until 2003. The easiest way to tell the difference is by the appearance of the key.

The older Passkey systems all have a pellet imbedded in the ignition key that communicates with the Theft Deterrent Module (TDM). On VATS and Passkey I, the TDM is hidden deep in the dashboard. On Passkey II, the TDM is built into the Body Control Module (BCM). The key's risible pellet is a resistor, and you can read its value by touching meter probes to the contacts on either side of the pellet. With the key in the ignition, the pellet touches contacts in the lock cylinder. These contacts are wired to the TDM, which reads the value of the resistor to identify the key. If the resistance is correct, the TDM sends a pulse-width modulated signal to the PCM, which then enables the fuel injectors. The TDM also operates the Theft Deterrent Relay (TDR) that allows power to reach the starter solenoid when the key is turned to the START position.

If the TDM doesn't recognize the key pellet, it decides a theft attempt is in progress and it will go into anti-theft mode. In this mode, the TDM will:

* Turn on the "Security" warning light on the instrument panel.

* Prevent starter operation by not turning on the Theft Deterrent Relay.

* Send a signal to the PCM telling it to disable the fuel injectors.

* Disable the key recognition circuit for three minutes.

This last point is important to people who own more than one GM vehicle. With multiple GM keys on the same key ring, accidentally inserting the wrong key in the ignition will prevent start-up, and the TDM waits three minutes before it will read the key circuit again. Also notice that the PCM is looking for a specific "go" or "no-go" signal from the TDM before it will decide whether or not to operate the injectors. The absence of a go signal is not a valid no-go signal, and vice versa.

If the TDM decides a theft attempt is in progress when the engine is already running, it will not stop the engine, but it will turn on the "Security" light and enter anti-theft mode at the next key cycle.

If the starter is operated without the key in the lock cylinder, such as with a remote starter switch, the TDM will interpret that as a theft attempt. Likewise, if there is a short to power or ground in the key recognition circuit, it is interpreted as a theft attempt. This can happen if the wiring in the steering column is damaged during theft, repair or installation of electronic accessories.

Either way, if the correct key is not in the ignition switch when the key recognition circuit fails, the TDM will turn on the "Security" light and enter anti-theft mode. If the correct key is in the cylinder and that circuit fails while the engine is running, this is considered a malfunction, not a theft attempt. The "Security" light may turn on to warn of a system malfunction, but even if it doesn't, a key recognition circuit failure with the proper key in the lock will cause the TDM to enter what GM calls a "fail-enable" mode. Essentially, the theft-deterrent system goes offline and the engine will start and run with any key that turns the lock.

KEYS

In the original VATS system, the key's resistor pellet and the TDM were programmed together at the factory. In the Passkey systems, the TDM will memorize the resistance of the first key inserted into the lock. There are 15 different resistance ranges or codes, and all are available as key blanks from GM dealerships. Within each range, the actual resistance may be more than 100 ohms different from the resistor's nominal code value, and even though a TDM will memorize the resistance of the first key inserted into the lock, it will recognize a key pellet in the same resistance range. Whether the TDM is a separate unit or built into the BCM, that key resistance range memory cannot be reprogrammed. The resistance range of that first key is what it will look for every time.

Computer interface Model CP22 complements MGCplus multi-channel data acquisition system by allowing rapid communication from sensors. In addition to RS232 serial link, unit includes TCP/IP, 10/100 Mbit Ethernet interface, which allows transmission of over 150,000 measured values/sec, across 64 channels, each operating at 2.4 kHz sample rate. USB 1.1 interface enables transmission of more than 50,000 measured values/sec across 24 channels operating at 2.4 kHz sample rate.

HBM has introduced the CP22 computer interface to complement its MGCplus multi-channel data acquisition system by allowing rapid communication from sensors.

The CP22 is available with three on board interfaces, including an RS232 serial link, to meet every requirement.

For larger networks the TCP/IP, 10/100 Mbit Ethernet is probably the best solution as it allows transmissions of over 150,000 measured values per second, across 64 channels, each operating at a 2.4 kHz sample rate.

Alternatively, the 1.1 USB interface allows transmissions of more than 50,000 measured values per second across 24 channels operating at a 2.4 kHz sample rate.

The USB interface also allows USB printers to be connected enabling measurements to be documented without the need for a PC using either a PCL(HP) or Esc/P (Epson).

The CP22 is designed to automatically recognize tasks and is suitable for synchronizing several MGCplus systems.

For more information contact :

Robert Davis, HBM Inc.,19 Bartlett Street, Marlborough, MA, 01752 Email: robert.davis@hbm.com Tel: 800-578-4260 Tel: 508-624-4500 Fax: 508-485-7480 Web: www.hbm.com

About HBM:HBM, with U.S. headquarters located in Marlborough, Mass., is a leading global supplier of measurement technologies, products and solutions for industrial test and measurement applications. HBM provides complete measurement solutions - from sensor to software - for industrial and laboratory applications. Its wide range of measurement parameters includes force, torque, weight, strain, displacement and pressure. Primary markets include aerospace, automotive and manufacturing.

Knowing that "time is muscle," Riverside Methodist Hospital staff started planning in 2000 to consolidate its fragmented heart and emergency services into a new, six-story, free-standing building so that the new McConnell Heart Hospital at Riverside and emergency department (ED) were only a floor apart. Emergency services took the initiative to find a more effective communications tool, and we went live with it in ED on opening day, Mar. 12, 2004, rolling it out on all clinical floors of the new building four months later.

Riverside Methodist Hospital in Columbus, Ohio is a 1,059-registered bed, not-for-profit, acute care, community hospital with 1,500 physicians and 6,500 employees. Part of the OhioHealth system of 13 member or affiliate hospitals, home health, hospice and outpatient facilities, Riverside is home to the largest open heart program in central Ohio. Our heart services, however, were scattered in the old hospital, and ED services were broken into three units on two floors. In our old ED, we cared for 70,000 patients annually in grossly inadequate 28,000 square feet of space designed to accommodate 45,000 patients a year. We had 32 beds, but only a third of them were private rooms. Twenty of the "rooms" were merely stretchers behind curtains in a "race track" design around the nurses' station.

To communicate, we carried heavy Motorola two-way radios clipped to our scrubs that had batteries that lasted less than one shift. Because of the line of sight through the curtained rooms, clinicians would shout to each other in the hallways. Telephones rang constantly and in the tight quarters, we could hear conversations on about 50 radios. Physicians were on one frequency on the radios, nurses were on another and we couldn't switch frequencies. Therefore, doctors and nurses called unit secretaries or charge nurses to locate each other, waiting on hold or playing telephone tag. We could hear sensitive patient conversations behind the curtained "rooms," when loud overhead speakers, pagers and multiple radio announcements didn't interrupt.

Exploring Options

To find a better way to communicate and to improve the environment of care, the planning committee put together an ED communications budget of $125,000 in 2001, thinking that we'd probably end up with a lighter, upgraded model of the Motorola radios we owned that had a longer battery life. We also explored an option from another vendor, but the devices would have been very expensive, the system required proprietary wiring and we couldn't negotiate a package deal.

We considered cell phones because the operating room bought about eight to 10 of them to communicate among pre-op, the operating room and the post anesthesia care unit. But the phones were expensive--running from $900 to $1,000 a piece--the system required a proprietary antenna system and we had to dial numbers like a regular phone. For the hundreds of point-to-point, task-oriented communications we initiate throughout the day, cell phones are too expensive and two-way radios are too slow.

Cost-effective Solution

We had resigned ourselves to using radios and started discussing with Motorola segregating groups of workers on communications frequencies when we got a call from our information services department about a new product that might fit the bill. The product turned out to be the Vocera communications system--a wireless platform that provides hands-free, voice communication throughout any 802.11b networked building or campus--from Vocera Communications, Cupertino, Calif. The lightweight communications badge clips to our scrubs or hangs on a lanyard and uses simple voice commands to initiate calls to individuals or groups. Like Star Trek, all we do to contact someone is press the talk button, say his or her name and we're put through.

After about 10 minutes reviewing the system's communication capabilities, we knew we had to test it in ED. We conducted a two-week test run in the old ED and surveyed the staff for their feedback. The reaction was very positive, so we decided to go with Vocera. We spent our $125,000 ED communications budget on $25,000 worth of badges (80 to 85 badges at $300 each, enough to equip ED at peak staffing, plus extras to accommodate breakage), a server for $75,000 and $25,000 for licenses and training. The 80 or so badges we ordered included equipping not only peak staffing in ED, but also lab, registration and housekeeping staff. We would love to have one device for everyone in emergency services, but with a headcount in ED alone of 240, that cost would have been too high.

We have two separate wireless networks in ED: a proprietary network for our Welch Allyn monitors and standard 802.11b wireless, which was already being installed in ED to accommodate the wireless laptops for bedside registration and other functions. Since the communication system runs on standard 802.11b wireless, our ED communications budget didn't have to bear the cost of the infrastructure. That cost came out of a separate IS budget.

Comprised of mobile station tester, test software, and RF shield box with built-in antenna coupler, Model GS-8210 enables users to perform functional testing of mobile phones on manufacturing line, fault diagnosis and adjustments on manufacturing QA and repair lines, and go/no-go test at service shops. RF shield box offers environment to simulate call operation, provide test results, and avoid conflicts with real networks, while software automates user's testing program.

GS-8210 Test System Designed to Reduce Mobile Phone Manufacturing and Service Repair Cost-of-Test

PALO ALTO, Calif., June 20, 2006 -- Agilent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: A) today introduced a low-cost mobile-phone functional test system designed for the wireless communication market. The GS-8210 system includes a mobile station tester, test software and RF shield box with build-in antenna coupler.

The Agilent GS-8210 tester is designed for the low-cost mobile phone testing market. The RF shield box offers the environment to simulate call operation, provide reliable test results and avoid conflicts with real networks. Its software automates the user's testing program.

The mobile communication industry is experiencing a huge technology shift with the evolution to 3G. Manufacturers and service providers are continually pressured to deliver cheaper and more affordable handsets in order to attract more users. As the number of subscribers increases, the demand for easy-to-use and cost-efficient test equipment grows significantly stronger. Agilent's GS-8210 system addresses these needs, allowing users to perform functional testing on the manufacturing line, fault diagnoses and adjustments on the manufacturing QA and repair lines, and "go/no-go" test at service shops.

"In the last several years, we have had a tremendous opportunity to work closely with some of our strategic customers around the world," said Amir Aghdaei, vice president and general manager of Agilent's Measurement Systems Division. "They have clearly articulated their need for a solution that meets their price/performance requirements with Agilent's premium support and quality standards. The GS-8210 is aimed at setting a new standard in the market to meet and exceed customers' needs for a just-enough test solution."

The Agilent GS-8210 system saves floor space with the small footprint and an upgrade feature, allowing customers to add new firmware or hardware as needed, instead of buying new equipment. The GS-8210 tester supports GSM/GPRS/EGPRS and W-CDMA; future editions will include options for cdma2000, 1xEV-DO, HSDPA and TD-SCDMA.

In recent years, managing a hospital's revenue cycle has become more than a dollars-and-cents proposition. Communication--between provider and payer organizations and between claims management and claims processing systems--has become increasingly important.

This level of communication can be quite complicated. The sheer volume and level of detail in the claims-related data that must be transmitted between payer and provider are overwhelming--patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, tests, insurance identification, eligibility, coverage policies, medical necessity requirements, bundling rules, and so on. It's no wonder that problems crop up, information slips through the cracks, and friction develops between provider and payer.

But tools are available that can help minimize the opportunities for miscommunication. Web-based claims management systems can eliminate many of the problem areas and help systems "talk" to each other in ways that make both the provider's and the payer's job easier.

Current Systems Flawed

Many hospitals today use a combination of internal resources and a clearinghouse to help manage the transmission of claims to third-party payers. Often, claims are prepared at the departmental level and then sent to the medical records office, where they are checked for errors and charges are assigned. Claims are held for several days to make sure all related charges have been submitted. The claims are hatched by payer and uploaded to the clearinghouse, using a legacy or modem-based system. Simultaneously, a copy of the claim is archived. The clearinghouse then scrubs the claims against major categories of edits and transmits each batch to the appropriate payer.

This approach has downsides, such as:

> The process doesn't ensure that claims are compliant with all regulations and edits. Although most clearinghouses can identify national and state guidelines, they seldom have the capabilities to make sure claims comply with payer-specific edits.

> Transmission may be conducted with older technologies such as modems, which can inadvertently drop claims without the knowledge of the clearinghouse or provider. The payer can confirm receipt of a batch of claims from the provider, but can't verify the number of claims or the dollar amounts represented in each.

> Providers can't track the status of claims once a batch has left the office. They can't check to determine whether the payer received the complete batch, which claims were accepted and which were rejected by the payer, what problems may have arisen, and when payments were made.

These deficiencies can lead to a variety of problems. Reporting errors depress the first-pass rate, requiring providers to resubmit claims. Insurance industry studies indicate that only 60 percent to 70 percent of the claims they receive pass on first submission and that rebilling can cost $2 to $10 per claim. A hospital submitting 6,000 claims a month can expect about 1,800 of them to be rejected, costing up to $18,000 in rebilling during that revenue cycle.

Resubmission, of course, adds substantial time to the revenue cycle. Generally speaking, it takes about two weeks for a payer to identify a problem claim and return it to the hospital. Staff members spend time calling the payer for clarification and correcting information. After resubmission, another two weeks or more might pass before the claim is processed and payment received. This process can have a significant impact on an organization's cash flow.

In addition, revenue opportunities might be missed altogether. If medical records or billing staff are using out-of-date claims editing or medical necessity software, the payer's system might generate unnecessary denials or incorrect payment of the claim. Plus, inadequate monitoring and reporting tools deny providers the opportunity to correct ongoing mistakes in-house.

Throughout, staff members are investing a tremendous amount of time in the paper chase--identifying problem claims and correcting errors, following up on outstanding charges, and generating reports and tracking documents manually.

Advantages of a Web-Based System

The latest generation of web-based claims management systems minimize the number of points along the continuum where mistakes can be made or data can be lost or corrupted. A hospital's claims are still created at the department level and sent to medical records for review and application charges. However, once all services have been reported and the charges entered, the hospital uploads claims from its billing system to the claims management system via the web. Claims are checked against up-to-date databases containing relevant payer policies and edits. The system identifies potential problems within specific claims and then provides system users with links to payer guidelines for correction of these problems. System users can then gather additional information on the problems, correct the claims, and alert colleagues so errors can be avoided in the future. Only then are the charges submitted to the payer.