1. Home
  2. ❯
  3. Companies
  4. ❯
  5. AOL
  6. ❯
  7. Oswestry
AOL

AOL outages and service status in Oswestry, England

No problems detected

If you are having issues, please submit a report below.

Full Outage Map
  • AOL generated 0 outage signals in the last 24 hours around Oswestry, including 0 direct reports.

AOL (America Online) is an internet portal as well as an internet service provider. As an ISP, AOL offers dial up internet through its AOL Advantage plans.

Problems in the last 24 hours in Oswestry, England

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

At the moment, we haven't detected any problems at AOL. Are you experiencing issues or an outage? Leave a message in the comments section!

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:

  • t14159
    My Full Name is uh.. (@t14159) reported

    @brockpierson That modem is too new. It doesn't have any microphones. Go back to the source with an acoustic coupler modem. Of course, you're going to have a little trouble getting a working telephone handset and analog phone line. At least the AoL CDs will be easy to find.

  • diamond_r_cap
    Jack_of_Trades (@diamond_r_cap) reported

    @nmlinguaphile mapquest! The Hammacher Schlemmer of online maps and connectivity! Are they still accepting 1,000 hours free dial up cdrom from AOL? If I were in corporate meeting: Should we do this? Me: Nobody gives a ****. Do what you want. Let's ignore them so they can die in peace.

  • joubalspacker
    joubalspacker (@joubalspacker) reported

    @thenarr47271717 @Bit_Faced @theswansjr Your analogy is a bit off Current Bitcoin is not 'The Internet' but more akin to the walled garden of America Online capable of serving only a select few... AOL was consumed by the wider permissionless network that served everybody... If BTC can only serve the masses via custodians it will be no different than a CBDC => It will be outcompeted by a freer money

  • gigi_rivera71
    Gigi 🇵🇷 (@gigi_rivera71) reported

    @BBfan4life4sure @Iwanthatveto They didn’t have HOH comps to save them or POV. They had to complete task and had to budget for food. They each had to vote 2 people that they wanted to leave each week. The people with the most votes I believe two or three were left for the viewers to decide banishment by calling an 800 number and voting. Live feeds were on AOL which was horrible. And they had live animals in the BY.

  • noc2urnal06
    🤙Noc2urnal (@noc2urnal06) reported

    @samlowen5105 @todayyearsold Sam. I had to Google that post. And I'll be dammed Aol launched in 83 and 91 is when it became computing service for apple and the likes. Crazy.

  • Nyadnar17
    Nyadnar#17 (@Nyadnar17) reported

    @LitterboxComics I was a new dad trying to research way to help my wife. Been trolling the depths of the internet for fun since AOL was a thing. I was not prepared for the deprivation and inhumanity I found in online parenting forums.

  • DaniilBuilds
    Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported

    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.

  • FlandoCalrissan
    FlandoCalrissian (@FlandoCalrissan) reported

    @theamelia___ 19. Never had an AOL address

  • RakeshSFNYC
    Rakesh Agrawal (@RakeshSFNYC) reported

    @ckneumann The dev team I worked with on one of my projects at Aol was from Mapquest. Absolute worst team I've ever worked with. But in this case, the fault was leadership.

  • AsymEdge
    Asymmetric Edge Research (@AsymEdge) reported

    @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.