That's because it is against the Forum Guidelines; but if you subscribe to your posts (or those of interest) via email, you will get/see the links. 
I will be filling it out.
That is true, and why links like that are removed.
Mikro wrote:
I just got the E-mail mentioning the May 2 2011 changes and includes the still confusing Bandwidth Usage Limits
Looks like I might be looking to go back to charter after reading TOS and the E-mail Because it looks like AT&T wants to Punish the General User instead of going after the 2% they say are abusing Network bandwidth Use.
I can't even find the link to the new TOS
The link is right at the bottom of the same email you, and other's received, as you found out, or already knew.
And your antics in changing the thread title from "AT&T To Impose Caps, Overages", to "AT&T TOS 2011 including Usage Limitations", in a serious 630+ thread is not appreciated! 
Here I thought I was getting email subscriptions from 2 different threads and they were one in the same. But they looked that way because you changed the thread title.
I changed the thread title back to what the OP had written and hope it stays that way.
Please do not disrupt this thread, or any other worthwhile threads, anymore.
texasguy37
texasguy37
bld522 wrote:
Uniblurb3 wrote:
Guess I learned what you see is not always what you get.
Now THERE's a prophetic statement if ever I've read one.
Kind of out of context when just part of my quote is posted.
It has to do with thread titles which keep flipping back and forth, threads being moved/edited by the mod, and maybe you can better explain?
spd2demun wrote:
#622 might be the post you're looking for, Uni?
Yeah, I know Spd that's were the new thread name started, thanks.
Typically when a thread is moved there's a link still left in the forum somewhere that would direct you to where it was moved to. But evidently that did not happen when these 2 threads were merged since I can't find it anywhere.
I just can't figure out why messages 624 & 626, which were edited by the mod, ended up with the OP's original thread title in the middle of posts 622-632 which had the title of "AT&T TOS 2011 including Usage Limitations". Something's skewed or maybe the mod changed the thread title name back to the original.
Or may I need to quit watching the show "Numbers" in the weee hours of the night/morning. 
bld522, we're cool and I understand my "prophetic statement" can be used for life in general, particularly with U-verse.
texasguy37
Uniblurb3 wrote:
Yeah, I know Spd that's were the new thread name started, thanks.
Typically when a thread is moved there's a link still left in the forum somewhere that would direct you to where it was moved to. But evidently that did not happen when these 2 threads were merged since I can't find it anywhere.
I just can't figure out why messages 624 & 626, which were edited by the mod, ended up with the OP's original thread title in the middle of posts 622-632 which had the title of "AT&T TOS 2011 including Usage Limitations". Something's skewed or maybe the mod changed the thread title name back to the original.
Or may I need to quit watching the show "Numbers" in the weee hours of the night/morning.
bld522, we're cool and I understand my "prophetic statement" can be used for life in general, particularly with U-verse.
Uni, here is the link to the thread Mikro originally started: http://forums.att.com/t5/General-Care-and-Support/
The title defaulted into the subject line of a reply is the subject of the message selected by the poster to reply to. Also, if the Reply button is selected at the top of the thread, the defaulted subject in the reply will be the title of the thread. Thus, message #623 chose Mikro's message to reply to. Message #624 and #626 either selected the Reply button at the top of the forum or selected another message in the forum with the original thread title to reply to.
texasguy37 wrote:
Uniblurb3 wrote:
Yeah, I know Spd that's were the new thread name started, thanks.
Typically when a thread is moved there's a link still left in the forum somewhere that would direct you to where it was moved to. But evidently that did not happen when these 2 threads were merged since I can't find it anywhere.
I just can't figure out why messages 624 & 626, which were edited by the mod, ended up with the OP's original thread title in the middle of posts 622-632 which had the title of "AT&T TOS 2011 including Usage Limitations". Something's skewed or maybe the mod changed the thread title name back to the original.
Or may I need to quit watching the show "Numbers" in the weee hours of the night/morning.
bld522, we're cool and I understand my "prophetic statement" can be used for life in general, particularly with U-verse.
Uni, here is the link to the thread Mikro originally started: http://forums.att.com/t5/General-Care-and-Support/
AT-amp-T-TOS-2011-including-Usage-Limitations/m-p/ ...
The title defaulted into the subject line of a reply is the subject of the message selected by the poster to reply to. Also, if the Reply button is selected at the top of the thread, the defaulted subject in the reply will be the title of the thread. Thus, message #623 chose Mikro's message to reply to. Message #624 and #626 either selected the Reply button at the top of the forum or selected another message in the forum with the original thread title to reply to.
TG, thanks for finding that thread and I wouldn't have thought to look in the "Account and Billing" boards. Of course when I clicked on that post/thread in his profile it came directly to this thread where it was moved.
It also sounds like a logical explanation on how posts 624 & 626 ended up with a different thread name out of the series. But I think the way the system works is wrong when it lets 9 posts maintain the moved thread title, and supersedes the existing thread name/title, when it's merged with an existing thread. If all members replied to the post in front of them, like I did, it would change the thread title completely from the original title. So as to not take up space in this thread I'll be discussing this issue with the mods further.
sirmaru wrote:There goes my streaming Netflix movie watching. I'll have to just rely on the Netflix Blue Ray and DVD movies now. Netflix probably triggered the ATT move by bragging that all their movies would be only streamed over the internet in 5 years.
I'm getting one of those new Sony / Google / Netflix 40" TV's. I guess now it will only be the TV part I will use. The rest just went obsolete before I even received it. I'm going to cancel it tomorrow and buy another one without internet access or just forget a new TV altogether. ATT just made that internet movie access OBSOLETE.
This makes me very sad. Please do not punish Netflix, Sony, and Google for the sins of AT&T. Punish AT&T. 
