Clearly the proper metric that used here is to charge for LTE data use per individual (or even per GB).
No, the proper metric is to charge whatever ridiculous rates for whatever ridiculous service dipshits are willing to pay to achieve maximum profitability. That's Economics 101.
According to another poster who claims to work for a large ISP these modems/routers are remotely accessible so the ISP/law enforcement don't not need to walk to your home to retrieve any information they need from it. However these devices don't have the memory required to store the DHCP logs you talk about. Any relevant information would be sent by the router to the ISP during the signon process and be kept there.
So this person is claiming that there is a back door in these devices that can be exploited without the network owner ever knowing. That sounds even worse than my original concern. Of course, it's only supposed to be accessed by the authorities, but once you open a back door it's really hard to only let the "good guys" in and keep the "bad guys" out.
Your scenario only makes sense if that criminal specifically wants to implicate you.
Why wouldn't they want to implicate someone else for a crime? Implicating someone else throws the trail off of the real perp.
Otherwise the whole "stealing Xfinity credentials and driving to be in range of your home Wifi" exercise would be pointless as for simple anonimity it would be much easier for him to pick any Internet cafe or even his home (no credentials to steal) and just use something like Tor.
Tor is not really anonymous and internet cafes are full of witnesses. Parking your car at 3:30 in the morning in a neighborhood full of Xfinity hotspots would leave fewer witnesses.
Now if someone wanted to implicate you by spoofing one of your MAC addresses, then using Xfinity credentials that don't belong to you would be stupid.
I agree that it wouldn't make a lot of sense, but confusion is a tool that has been used by malicious people for thousands of years. It throws the scent off of the real perp, buying precious time to get away or cover up the evidence.
Who are you to rate this scenario as 'low probability' rather than 'totally implausible'? Some kind of fantasy world super hero with an arch enemy?
Who are you to say that it is "totally implausible"? Besides, the fact that you and many other people would consider it "totally implausible" is all the more reason for someone to attempt it.
Ballmer told the board last June that if he didn't get what he wanted, he wouldn't be CEO any more
So Microsoft could have declined to buy Nokia's handset business, retained the $7b they would have spent on it, and have gotten rid of Ballmer sooner? That just has win all over it. And in classic fashion, they stumbled once again and made the completely wrong move. At this point, watching Microsoft implode is starting to transition from hilarious to slightly sad. After what they've done to the software industry, they deserve to suffer, but at some point they're going to need to start making smart moves if they want to continue providing serious competition.
As the parent said, the IP address that will come up is not the cable modem's owner so there's no reason why searching for it would turn up the name and address of the cable modem's owner
That IP address is still tied to the MAC address of the cable modem's owner, so where do you think law enforcement will go for answers? Sure, there's plenty of reasons to exonerate the modem's owner, but at the very least they will be inconvenienced by law enforcement officials and at worst, some aggressive departments would try to levy charges just to put someone on the hook. The odds of that happening might be low, but you have to ask yourself if it's worth the hassle.
Or else explain why we have not seen thousands of such cases in Spain, France, Germany, Japan where such setups have been in place for years
They have different cultures where law enforcement may be more concerned with convicting the actual perpetrator rather than just getting a conviction. I admit this is pure speculation since I am not familiar with law enforcement in those countries, but I do know that in the U.S., many police departments and prosecutors are more concerned with increasing their percentage of solved crimes and convictions than making sure they got the right people.
It sounds like they're put in a separate virtual wlan than you are, and are given a separate IP.
I'm sure law enforcement officers and a jury would easily understand these concepts and there won't be any people unfairly put on trial for an outsider abusing this feature.
Are we talking about candy bars, or carrots?
Fruits, vegetables, pasta, pretzels, occasionally candy (although no chocolate since that has fat that leads to the digestive issues). I believe the reason that I have lost the weight is that my calories per portion went down significantly even though my carb intake went up. The point is, people don't need to demonize one type of nutrient and avoid it altogether to lose weight and become healthier.
However, regarding sugar: I have recently had to change my diet due to issues with digesting fatty foods. That has resulted in me eating foods with more carbs and sugar. I have lost about 25 pounds in less than a year. By no means am I advocating a diet with increased sugar intake, but the point is that different people process foods differently and there is no one food that needs to be avoided entirely.