AOL outages and service status in York, South Carolina

Problems in the last 24 hours in York, South Carolina

The chart below shows the number of AOL reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in York, South Carolina 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:

• 
  ramzy (@0xRamzy) reported 5 minutes ago

  AOL paid $165 billion to win Time Warner in 2000 and wrote off $99 billion of it two years later. A quiet Yale lecture from 2007 proves the same mechanic that killed that deal is silently draining money from every homebuyer, every hiring manager, and every person who has ever won an eBay auction. The lecture is part of the free game theory course Yale posted online. The professor teaches with a hundred undergraduates and a piece of chalk. No slides, no textbook required. His name is Ben Polak. He ran Yale's economics department, was later made Provost of the university, and spent fifteen years teaching this same course to a lecture hall of students paying $60,000 a year for seats a stranger with an internet connection could sit in for free. The idea has a name. The winner's curse. It was first identified in a 1971 paper by three oil engineers at Atlantic Richfield who had noticed something odd about their industry. Every major oil company in America was bidding on offshore drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico. They all had geologists and the same maps. The winner of each lease, on average, was losing money on the field. The engineers proved that when everyone estimates the same object with roughly equal error, the person who wins is almost always the one who over-estimated the most. Winning was proof of being wrong. The check they wrote was the receipt. The full lecture fits into three sentences. If you and a room full of reasonable people are all bidding for the same thing, your best estimate of it is almost certainly too high. If it were low, you would not be the one winning. The number of losers you beat is information about how wrong you are. Polak's summary is one line: shade your bid. Not because you are stupid. Because winning is the strongest signal in the market that you paid too much. Concrete case: a young couple bids on a three-bedroom house against fourteen other offers in a hot April market. They win at $80,000 over asking. They feel triumphant for one week. Two years later three of the losing bidders have bought the same style house on the same street for $60,000 less. The couple never sees a "for sale" sign. They just have a mortgage that eats every raise for the next decade. Every buyer who has ever won a house at $30,000 over the second-highest offer paid $29,999 more than the market thought it was worth. Every hiring manager who beat two other companies to a candidate is paying the number that was too high for two other adults. Every free-agent contract in sports that "shocks the league" was set by the one general manager who was most optimistic in the room. The lecture is on YouTube. Yale posted it in 2007. Almost none of the millions who have watched it ever shaded a bid on the next thing they wanted. The math is free. Bidding a little less than you feel like on the next thing you want to win is the entire edge. ↓

• 
  Chris Kepford (@kippyNYC) reported 8 minutes ago

  @MissAuroraSnow Never change ! You haven't changed since a million years ago when we used to talk on I think it was Yahoo or AOL or something about Kurt Vonnegut. I bet you don't remember that ha

• 
  🩸EmoFagLover🩸 (@Donnyboy_08) reported 9 minutes ago

  I’ve tried every single number he has to date and his current number still lets me call but he never picks up. I’ve tried his email and aol. I’ve tried his first twitter account, I’ve tried instagram and facebook. I’ve even gone as far as to text him through a quest 2-

• 
  WanderMan (@WanderMan0101) reported 9 minutes ago

  @IronySeeker @Kalshi AOL, Worldcom, Enron, Lehman Brothers: all too big to fail

• 
  Red-Green Alliance (@RedGreenBC) reported 15 minutes ago

  Still mad at some snarky QT about how AI is being forced on users going "ehrmmmm ackshually they had to mail everyone an AOL CD for years!!!" yeah they didn't deliberately make computers a pain to use without it though did they. Idiot

• 
  Anna Rios (@LatinladyAnna) reported 16 minutes ago

  @Jolie_Miller09 No way we don’t want an idiot in the white house AOL, HARRIS, CROCKETT ARE 3 TOTAL IDIOTS

• 
  Mortifer Vates (@Breck0882) reported 18 minutes ago

  @SmugAlana YouTube’s day is coming, much like AOL, Netscape, yahoo, MySpace, ect. The days as king are limited. To much customer dis-satisfaction, something will come along and dethrone them. And it’s not going to be kick or rumble. It will be something new.

• 
  perry⭐️🪽 (@truebluedyke) reported 20 minutes ago

  them talking in aol chatrooms and sending each other gore sites and live link **** and being freaky gore lovers together 🫡🫡🫡🫡

• 
  Ronald Jansson (@ronjassme) reported 21 minutes ago

  AOL is certainly likeable. I like her. She's just not here in America's best interest. She's not. Some say she's the enemy. And they may be right. They, are not the enemy, they care about what's good for America. Now AOL has some real jewels seeking out against Americans, as a US Congressperson, she may be over stepping her obligation to the "Right" people. Not that she's never, "Right", you can be Right, and still represent the wrong people. Which people does she actually serve???? That's the Right question.

• 
  lusid (@lusidghost) reported 22 minutes ago

  @dirtyhippie77 Before I reply to your comment, let me take a walk down memory lane and recount the first comment I ever replied to on the internet. I believe it was in a chat room on AOL. I had just logged onto a free trial from a disc that had come in the mail. I first had to make up a username and password. My head spun. Who WAS I? I hadn't asked myself this question until this very moment. Who, WAS, I? AND, what was my password? My head spun once again, but with more centrifugal force and bewilderment. Anyway, yeah no doubt.