Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

[joel at jdh.myzen.co.uk]

Andrew Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at ja.net> wrote :
> Apologies if I'm missing something, but does the consultation document, or
> anything else, reveal what the proposed "changes to section 3(1)" actually are?
> As far as I can see the only statement is that they will "remove the ambiguity",
> which is nice, but if I'm going to comment on whether I agree with the proposed
> changes then I'd rather like to know what the new text will look like. 
 
I agree - it's pretty tough to argue with the objective of removing ambiguity, but the document doesn't actually make clear how this will be achieved.

Joel