AOL outages and service status in Trowbridge, England

Problems in the last 24 hours in Trowbridge, England

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Trowbridge, England and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

AOL Issues Reports Near Trowbridge, England

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in Trowbridge and nearby locations:

• 
  NoizyGeoff (@GeoffNoizy) reported 17 minutes ago from Bathford, England

  @Reblou3Rebecca Only one. Never had an AOL account.

• 
  Gerry Lynch (@gerrylynch) reported 28 minutes ago from Devizes, England

  @SimonCatRiley Lycos. I remember when Lycos was the best. Then it was outcompeted by AltaVista. I never thought Yahoo was any good, even when it was the most popular one. And AOL's mega-intranet which seemed dated by 2000 but by now a strange precognition of social media.

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Ben Tyson (@HexitBen) reported 36 seconds ago

  @theswansjr AOL was the first app on the internet Ethereum is the internet of money Bitcoin is a broken meme that burns $15 billion investor dollars a year defending unaudited, spaghetti code consensus

• 
  Tai (@TaiSmitty2) reported 2 minutes ago

  @MapQuest Holy ****!!! Does Netscape still exist too? What about AOL?

• 
  AllThingsFirearms (@ATFirearmsTTV) reported 2 minutes ago

  @BlackBeamLabs I still have one of the few remaining @aol and @netscape emails... ******* for admitting that honestly lmao

• 
  Deeby🇺🇸 (@deebyman) reported 4 minutes ago

  @MapQuest Who ******** uses Mapquest still, they must use AOL also

• 
  Ian Jacobs (@WSoxPovertyFran) reported 7 minutes ago

  @chisportsross He’s on the spectrum, ain’t nothing going on in that head of his, but put basketball through hoop. Listening to AOL dial up noises as his hype track. All that to say it’s entirely not just believable, but likely that he was too stupid to understand a single thing going on.

• 
  RealNHSMedway (@real_nhs) reported 8 minutes ago

  @DailyMirror What embarrassing drivel you post on the AOL newsfeed! Non-stories, utter crap - I can only imagine what the newspaper must be like! Pathetic excuse for content.

• 
  Schinto Beans (@DollsEyeAvoider) reported 13 minutes ago

  @DaddyWarpig Based on how utterly ******* ignorant AOL news headlines read in 2003 before the Iraq invasion, this doesn't surprise me in the least. I expect it to be this bad or worse now.

• 
  Miss EsqHire (@MissEsqHire) reported 16 minutes ago

  My candidate at a small, no-name firm is about to turn down an offer from an international law firm because they use Harvey and his current firm uses Claude. Apparently he cannot live without Claude. Can someone explain the difference to me like I’m my mom in the ’90s discovering AOL? Any arguments for Harvey that I can retort with?

• 
  Asymmetric Edge Research (@AsymEdge) reported 17 minutes ago

  @2147mill The problem with the normie test is that the internet passed it in 1999 too. Totally non techy families were on AOL back then as well, over 20 million of them by the end of 1999. Amazon went from 17 million customers to 25 million between 1999 and 2001 and nearly doubled revenue, and the stock still lost 94% over those two years. So usage only tells you the thing is real. For the bubble question I look at what people pay for the earnings. Cisco was over 100x forward at the 2000 top, Nvidia is under 20x right now. Same thing with the crypto half of your post by the way. Nobody uses gold day to day either and that never made gold a bubble.

• 
  Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported 22 minutes ago

  AOL and Time Warner didn’t just pay for what the two companies were worth in January 2000. They paid for what they believed the two companies could become together. The announced merger was valued at roughly $350B, with AOL shareholders expected to own about 55% of the combined company. The logic was easy to understand: combine AOL’s internet business with Time Warner’s media assets and create value neither could generate alone. But there was a financial problem hiding inside that logic. Future synergies are uncertain. The merger closed in January 2001. SEC disclosures later put the acquisition cost at approximately $147B. Then came the accounting reckoning. In 2002, the combined company reported a $98.7B net loss, including a $54.2B goodwill impairment. That $54.2B was non-cash. It did not mean the company suddenly paid out $54.2B in cash. It meant the value previously assigned to acquired goodwill could no longer be supported at the same level. That distinction matters. When you pay upfront for future synergies, you are effectively putting a price on value that still depends on execution. If the synergies arrive, the premium can make sense. If they don’t, shareholders can end up carrying the cost. The most expensive synergy is the one you pay for before you prove it exists.