Now I see where you’re coming from.
Unfortunately that's not your solution. It doesn’t even accurately describe your problem. Notice that sapius leaves one small detail for the very end that makes all the difference; it only applies to DSL! And even then, only to DSL users who use a combo DSL modem+router (something he never mentions).
Even if you had DSL, and a combo DSL modem+router, sapius hasn’t actually addressed the root cause. He’s merely described a means to remove the double NAT that occurs when someone using a DSL modem+router wants to add a second router of their own choosing.
[dsl modem+router](lan)<-- wire -->(wan)[router]
By placing the DSL modem+router in “bridge mode”, it effectively demotes the DSL modem+router to just a modem (thus eliminating the first NAT/firewall). That’s all well and good, and has some advantages, but it does NOTHING to correct the dropped connections between the modem and ISP, if that indeed is what’s happening. Heck, it doesn’t even correct the problem of the client being unaware of the dropped connection between the modem and the ISP, as he suggests. Since any clients behind the router are only indirectly accessing the modem, whether there’s one or even 100 routers, those clients are never “notified” about problems w/ that connection until Internet access is attempted. IOW, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t even correct the problem for those individuals for whom this would apply (DSL users). At least it’s not obvious to me it would.
In a nutshell, to the extent any of sapius’s comments are accurate (only partially imo), it only applies to DSL, and only DSL users w/ a combo DSL modem+router. In the world of cable and separate modem and router devices, it’s completely irrelevant.