No. It looks to me like you've just looked it up now, and are trying to retroactively fit it to what you wrote.
The definition from Google's dictionary is "involving an amount of effort and difficulty that is oppressively burdensome."
Onerous, correctly defined, is a burden, it represents work one must do.
Vizio put absolutely no burden on you, even though what they did sucked. It was not onerous. Your usage context does not fit a situation where Vizio is putting effort and difficulty on you, rather it indicates you meant to use a word more like "presumptuous".
The joke is from The Princess Bride, where Vizzini repeatedly uses the word "inconceivable" for things that are not only conceivable, but also occur. Fezzik tells him "I don't think [that word] means what you think it means."
With the Comcast modem lease of $6/mo, you could pay off your modem in (insert mathy stuff) months!!
Every cable ISP subscriber should have their own modem, and a gateway router of their own choosing. But be sure to check first with your ISP that the modem you buy is supported. They need to be able to connect and interact with it, even if it's yours.
Certainly a risk, as no software firewall can be perfect. However, that NAS, if connected on the LAN which is on the Internet, ALREADY has a very similar element of risk:
A hacker just needs to punch through the router from the public side to the LAN side. That's not so different whether the hack comes from China or your driveway.
People need to understand that a home gateway router ALREADY has a public side and a private LAN side. That's how you are connected to the Internet!! Adding wifi on the public side doesn't make it any more public.
"They do not have the bandwidth to support their customers bandwidth demands"
No, for the most part they do. Most customers actually use a trickle of data (especially if averaged through the day), but have 30Mbps connections. Not a big deal to add some outside traffic on a "space available" basis. The system is designed to prioritize homeowner's traffic.
Although both cases deal with third parties and passers-by using a home's WiFi/Internet connection, in the 2007 case it was the homeowner who may or may not have offered public access. In the current topic, it is the ISP that has chosen to offer public access.
Techdirt was in favor of the public access in 2007, because it was a rational assumption that the homeowner may have deliberately shared their Internet/power/bandwidth/wifi, but in the current case, that is almost certainly untrue.
I personally refuse to use Comcast premise equipment so I can retain control of my network. At my in-laws house, I disabled the public network on principle - nobody asked permission, and no tit-for-tat incentive was offered.
I like the concept of a blanket of wifi provided by home routers, like FON. But it needs to be consent-based.
But the city did not get all the revenue for the medallions. Many are re-sold on secondary markets, and investors and speculators made the capital gain.
I say tough. Lots of capital investments drop in value. That's kinda the downside of capitalism and investment. I've bought shares of companies that went to zero. Why did they go to zero? Well, because other better technologies came along and disrupted their markets.
So it is with Medallions. They are dropping in value because something better came along. Only difference is the gov't is involved, so those people who invested are crying to gov't to stop their losses. Tough shit.
What if you owned Blackberry when iPhone came out, or Diamond Rio when the iPod? What if I invested in a travel agency just before the Internet messed up their valuations? What if I bought stock in Garmin or Tom Tom right before Google offered nav for free on Android? Tough crap. Private investors need to tale their losses.
The smartest investors will have sold their medallions a while ago, anticipating the disruption. But somebody loses. Why should they have an unlimited upside, with a guaranteed downside protection from the city?