I've been on the Windows 10 Insider program for quite a while, and keep one work machine on a stable build and the other in the Fast ring. For a lot of our production machines, we're going to go with the next spin of Long Term Servicing Branch for just this reason. I'm not happy that you have to give up all feature updates for years in order to get an OS they're not going to be changing behavior on every month.
Having seen both the stable and super-new builds running similar application loads, it's obvious that Microsoft is skimping on code quality in both, sacrificing it for fast feature releases. However, very few "breaking" bugs make it into their stable (CBB) builds. I'm not happy that the home consumers have to deal with these though...they have no choice. And when it's something like breaking wireless, that's a big deal -- most users are at least on laptops now if not tablets.
On balance I think they made the right decision for the overall market on patching. Unpatched Windows home machines are just asking for ransomware or a botnet takeover, and consumers have no clue how to manage their machines. For business, I think they made an OK compromise, but wish they would make the updates not be all-or-nothing. The user population I support runs hundreds of applications from sources we don't control, and right now on Windows 7 we get a few security updates a year that break them, some in ways we can't fix without getting the vendor to make a change. In the old pick-and-choose model, we would figure out which monthly updates didn't break the application set and apply them, then wait for a time we could apply the "bad" ones when an application drops off the radar or gets fixed.