AOL outages and service status in Shiremoor, England

Problems in the last 24 hours in Shiremoor, England

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

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

• 
  Jane Dobson (@JaneaDobson) reported 8 minutes ago from Whitley Bay, England

  AOL Mail has been down all morning, can neither send nor receive messages, unfortunately.

• 
  StuT (@tenchylad) reported 10 minutes ago from Sunderland, England

  Awful and that isn't a criticism of the kids , but more of the structure that currently exists. Not the infrastructure, as the AOL speaks for itself, but the coaching and recruitment model in places , needs a total root-and-branch reform of the way the Academy is managed. #SAFC

• 
  Ian Harrison (@Hag_SAFC) reported 17 minutes ago from Morpeth, England

  @andrew_hird @SunderlandAFC @England Whilst the 1st team lanquishes in the 3rd tier of English Football, having been on the verge of bankruptcy. The AOL has benefited all bar who it is supposed to, thanks to previous mismanagement. And the irony of watchn a relegation owing to shit keepers, whilst watchn JP in a WC

• 
  brett askew (@slimfarmer) reported 23 minutes ago from Lamesley, England

  @clivechilcott @ProagriLtd @AOL @nusuk surly this would be deal for you to promote, good work ethics,outside,good rates of pay plenty of students locked down twiddling there thumbs till September

• 
  Chris Lisle (@CDLSoundAVguy) reported 25 minutes ago from Gateshead, England

  @SkyNews saw your article about yahoo being down today, AOL mail was also down most of today and it’s owned by the same parent company as yahoo

• 
  Aaron (@charlton_comedy) reported 39 minutes ago from Sunderland, England

  ******* Shit @SunderlandAFC what is going on with the AOL

AOL Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Steve Harvey 🇬🇧🇨🇦 (@steveharvey2001) reported 1 minute ago

  @AntiEVidiots When EVs were niche, driving one was like being part of a community with a shared secret. Similar to being on the internet in the early 1990s, before the AOL hordes turned up with their poor netiquette.

• 
  Dark Skies (@DarkSkiesNE) reported 3 minutes ago

  Data Centers have been around for a long time... The commercial internet & World Wide Web created demand for always-on servers & interconnection. Early internet exchange points such as MAE-East in Northern Virginia (Metropolitan Area Exchange–East), established in 1992, was the first non-governmental Internet Exchange Point (IXP) in the United States. It served as a physical meeting point where early commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) could interconnect & exchange traffic directly rather than routing everything through distant or government-controlled networks. This peering model reduced costs & latency & became a foundational piece of the commercial Internet. America Online’s presence in the region, plus cheap land near Dulles Airport, available fiber & proximity to Washington, D.C. & DARPA (which had funded ARPANET), made Loudoun County/Ashburn attractive. Equinix, founded in 1998, built one of the region’s first dedicated commercial data centers to serve AOL & others, pioneering the colocation model. Companies rented space, power, cooling & connectivity instead of building their own facilities. Similar “carrier hotels” & interconnection hubs emerged in cities such as New York & Los Angeles. The late-1990s dot-com boom accelerated construction of larger purpose-built facilities. The subsequent bust left unused space that later operators filled.

• 
  CEOInterviews.AI (@CEOinterview) reported 6 minutes ago

  An early Polygon investor ran the comparison against his own position. Yat Siu @ysiu puts the value split at 90 to 95 percent to the application that owns the customer, with gas fees going to the chain underneath. Polymarket's private valuation is 8 billion dollars. Polygon, the chain Polymarket is built on, is a lot smaller. His analogy is the mid 90s, when AOL bought Time Warner and the ISPs were the giants of the moment. AT&T is worth a lot of money today. It is smaller than Google, Apple and Nvidia. Critical infrastructure keeps getting built. It stops being the biggest company in the room.

• 
  steve brei (@stevebrei) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Salvo8284 @AYTOarchive Same here AOL just never could figure out how to adjust with the market and rebrand away from being viewed as an internet access company once local broadband started being rolled out nationwide by other companies and municipalities.

• 
  Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported 9 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.

• 
  𓆏𓍝⇦⇦⇦ (@TylerW35386) reported 12 minutes ago

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

• 
  Asymmetric Edge Research (@AsymEdge) reported 13 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 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.

• 
  Tai (@TaiSmitty2) reported 14 minutes ago

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

• 
  Bubblegum (@VeriPatriot45) reported 17 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.