@dont tell em pike
I would say the point is you might not notice a risk of collision because there is no requirement for anyone to monitor the flight of an aircraft under Basic Service and the pilot must not expect any traffic information, generic or pertinent warning. What this does do though is answer a Duty of Care issue whereby the controller/FISO has some information that he has the capacity to associate with a definite risk of collision and has the time and priority level to be able to pass a pertinent warning. The only alternative is to say you should not pass a warning and sit and watch a merge at the same height and say nothing. I cannot believe there is a controller alive who would advocate that stance. However, what it also attempts to do is answer some of the conundrum whereby controllers feel they are currently obliged to tell FIS tracks of everything else in the sky - 'just in case'. That has led to the the position where some units pretty much provide a RIS when the pilot asks for a FIS and some units where FIS is provided in accordance with current regulations whereby only definite risks are passed. That is confusing for the customer and I believe is what these proposals are trying to address.
Lets all do the same thing has got to be good?