AOL outages and service status in Seascale, England

Problems in the last 24 hours in Seascale, England

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Seascale, 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

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  𓆏𓍝⇦⇦⇦ (@TylerW35386) reported 6 minutes ago

  @betty_egg I am pre-aol by years and years. aol is when the internet became entirely stupid.

• 
  Art 🇺🇲⚓ (@BeerAce73) reported 7 minutes ago

  @MapQuest MapQuest? Is that like AOL? Stupid *****.

• 
  Ragh Pandragon (@RaghPandragon) reported 8 minutes ago

  The truth is stranger. Long ago in the 90's there was still magic in the world every time you wanted to get on the internet you had to electrocute one fairy. Just one. Unfortunately disconnects were an issue. Slowly, one connection at a time, we fed all of the magic creatures into the gaping maw of oblivion to power our ICQ chats and AOL instant messengers. At least until Human Energy Update 3.9 Service Pack 2. Now every time you log in you just lose a little bit of your own soul, no fairy deaths required.

• 
  Khazar Theory Enthusiast (@ashkenahzee) reported 9 minutes ago

  @KayakZztee5 @tombelaviv_ At least he has a gallbladder and a mother. One who didn't die ashamed. One who didn't have repressed anger towards her son for being a useful idiot of the feds just like Jason Kessler and mentally ill disabled former employee of Oddcast and AOL. Sven is his new mommy. Evil mommy

• 
  Michael (@Mikehb1989) reported 10 minutes ago

  Aol Mail is so bad it won't even let you log out 👎👎👎#Aolmail

• 
  Fred Johnston (@JohnstonFredJ) reported 10 minutes ago

  @getwhatugive @LynAldenContact You’re collapsing the product and the protocol. BlackRock/MSTR make money if demand for bitcoin rises. Demand rises when access gets easier: brokerage accounts, 401ks, treasuries, Lightning, hardware wallets. Shrinking the buyer pool would hurt their bags. That’s the opposite incentive of “reduce access.” Early internet had AOL too. Walled gardens expanded the user base first. The open network still won because the protocol wasn’t owned by AOL.Same here. An ETF is not a modem ban. Anyone can still run a node, hold keys, and send sats. Institutions can offer a wrapper. They cannot revoke the chain. “Gemini agrees” is not an argument. The music-sharing analogy also fails: Napster was illegal and centralized. Bitcoin settles on a public ledger. You don’t sterilize that by listing a ticker.

• 
  A.J. Perez (@byajperez) reported 11 minutes ago

  @ChelseaV @DegenerateTBone Is your AOL that slow you didn’t see my next tweet?

• 
  LKA (@katiwa_4) reported 12 minutes ago

  Someone decided the Adams Arcade lights are not working… with Ngong road matatus flying like they have no breaks … Aol yawa.

• 
  Daknife (@DirkDaknife) reported 13 minutes ago

  @brockpierson Best of all were the PackardHell Combo sound card and modem, which would literally have IRQ conflicts with itself! I spent many a long call (AOL Tech Support in 96-98) trying to find a combination that a particular machine would accept.

• 
  Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported 20 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.