AOL outages and service status in Kelvedon, England

Problems in the last 24 hours in Kelvedon, England

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

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

• 
  Brian O'Keefe (@rider45) reported 20 minutes ago from Great Baddow, England

  @anildash I can remember Microsoft trying to launch their own network to compete with the internet or so it seemed, I joined got an account then had to wait about an hour, via dialup, to cancel it, back to AOL it was for me.

• 
  Mike Yardley (@YardleyShooting) reported 25 minutes ago from Colchester, England

  @TalkTalk , @Yahoo and @AOL seem to have the greatest difficulty maintaining a normal service. I pay for a service which I am not getting. I am cut off from my email at the moment. Previously, I have been plagued by Indian sub continent scammers because of a data breach. #NotGood

• 
  James Freund (@jayfreund) reported 29 minutes ago from Earls Colne, England

  @aol what does it take to help get back into my emails , Phones played up and won’t let me reset my password !!! Please help

• 
  John Van Praag (@JohnVanPraag) reported 31 minutes ago from Great Notley, England

  @AOLSupportHelp I have an AOL app on my iPad with a load of no longer valid contact addresses. When I delete them via the on line site they do not disappear from my iPad contacts. There is no tick box on the iPad contacts to facilitate deleting them direct! Help!!

• 
  James Freund (@jayfreund) reported 44 minutes ago from Earls Colne, England

  Any technical wizards out there , been with out email for 6 days now , having grief with @aol trying to retrieve my password , HELP

• 
  Chris Crowther (@hikariuk) reported 48 minutes ago from Maldon, England

  @theretrobyte I think I would still have been with Dungeon/FlexNet back then. Never used any of the likes of AOL, Freeserve, etc.

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Victor (@gvictor808) reported 5 minutes ago

  @brockpierson Yes. Prodigy (Prodigy Interactive Personal Service) was a commercial online service that people accessed with a dial-up modem over regular phone lines. It launched publicly in 1988 as a joint venture of IBM and Sears (originally developed as Trintex with CBS). You installed their client software on a PC or Mac, the program dialed a local access number, and you connected at typical early speeds of 1200 or 2400 bps. Later they added faster modem support and, in 1994, web access. It was one of the “big three” consumer online services of that era, alongside CompuServe and AOL. Users got news, weather, email, bulletin boards, shopping, stocks, games, and similar features through a graphical interface—not the open internet at first. Startup kits sometimes even bundled a modem. The classic Prodigy service ran until the late 1990s; after that it shifted toward being an ISP before fading out.

• 
  Bubblegum (@VeriPatriot45) reported 5 minutes ago

  @MapQuest Talk about a blast from the past. Didn’t know you guys still existed. You must be busy hanging out with AOL and floppy discs in the land of outdated crap.

• 
  Boca G (@BocaG) reported 10 minutes ago

  @lithos_graphein @brockpierson Love it, fond memories of my BBS days. I was one of the first in my area to get a meg drive for my Commodore 64! I still dream of the sound the modem used to make. Then the Prodigy service came along and soon after the mass mailing of AOL disks! That was the end of most BBS’s

• 
  Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported 14 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.

• 
  Khazar Theory Enthusiast (@ashkenahzee) reported 15 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

• 
  Alley AL (@BackAlleyAL_) reported 18 minutes ago

  @SouthernGo40189 @markasual5 @BadQualityMemes No it means you never used a computer pre google as in AOL

• 
  AURI (@bossladyaurelia) reported 20 minutes ago

  AOL never asked me for more storage and I have emails for over 20 years….. why Gmail gotta do me like that 😫

• 
  John (@tobeawitness) reported 25 minutes ago

  @_TheLaundryMat This whole argument seems silly to me. I have personally used AI to complete projects in a month that probably would have taken me several years without it. The productivity gains from AI, even in its current form, are already enormous. Could there be a bubble in some AI stocks or company valuations? Absolutely. But that does not mean AI itself is a bubble. Think about AOL. Everyone remembers America Online. AOL is largely irrelevant today, but the internet certainly did not disappear with it. You are probably reading this on a computer or phone connected to the internet at speeds that make the old 56k modem look prehistoric. That is the distinction people are missing. During the internet boom, many companies were wildly overvalued and eventually disappeared. But the underlying technology was real, transformative, and ultimately became far bigger than people imagined. AI will likely follow a similar path. There will be winners and losers. Some companies will fail, and some investments will prove ridiculously overpriced. But AI itself is not going away, and neither is the massive computing and data-center infrastructure required to support it. The bubble, if there is one, is in certain valuations—not in the technology or the demand for it.

• 
  Asymmetric Edge Research (@AsymEdge) reported 26 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.

• 
  joubalspacker (@joubalspacker) reported 26 minutes ago

  @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