Tony, thanks for your thoughtful response to the points raised by me and others I presume to be fellow Hams.
The fact is “The Man” doesn’t have very many men, and the regulations are really predicated on cooperation and reasonable accommodation among all parties involved when RFI occurs. The Amateur service is largely self-regulated and self-enforced, and the FCC expects Amateur operators to be likewise self-reliant and cooperative in dealing with interferece between the Amateur Service and other services or Part 15 devices. Hams use Part 15 devices also, of course, so we all have the same vested interests in promoting the peacuful co-existence of all legitimate emitters.
More generally on the subject of RFI, I think I speak for most Hams when I say our concerns are two-fold. In the first instance, we believe that manufacturers often produce devices that are far noisier than they need to be. It’s usually quite inexpensive to mitigate RFI, but manufacturers are looking at the multiplied costs, and they often cut corners. Secondly, there is a need for awareness and cooperation among all parties when RFI occurs. Hams have specialized knowledge that we can’t really expect the general public to have; but the main thing needed by both parties is what we were all taught in Kindergarten.
So now, back to the veiled threat you perceived. I don’t know the OP’s intent, but it seems to me that he accurately stated what could be the worst-case consequence for someone purchasing a poorly-implemented Part 15 device. That could be seen not as a threat, but as an injuction to a manufacturer to protect the interests of their customers. And for what it’s worth, a quick persual of available information seems to indicate that in-home power-line broadband networks are not particularly problematic wrt RFI, in contrast to the commercial equivalent.