AOL outages and service status in Holliston, Massachusetts

Problems in the last 24 hours in Holliston, Massachusetts

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

• 
  1stRoundBust (@FirstRdBust) reported 2 minutes ago

  @Irina_exh 18 for sure, Aunt had a waterbed. I tried it, it was terrible, and I never used an AOL address. I was a yahoo guy. Still have it. I did, however, use those cds that gave you internet time.

• 
  CEOInterviews.AI (@CEOinterview) reported 8 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.

• 
  Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported 11 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.

• 
  Roger Baker (@RogerBa18178307) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Anu_Start__ This graphic is crap - still has AOL on it. If this is where companies started there are dozens of errors.

• 
  Greywulf (@Greywulf4) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Irina_exh Never had AOL

• 
  LagomProphet (@LagomProphet) reported 21 minutes ago

  @thepeacepoet99 Throughout the 80's we'd been told nuclear war was imminent. Literally thought the world was going to end -- then the Soviet Union Collapsed and the western world celebrated! We were full of hope and optimism for a future without the threat of global annihilation. Glam metal morphed into grunge, Goatees for all the men, and flannel on everyone. And weirdly biker shorts, plus ***** packs, doo rags, but also the rise of widely popular rap. Gen X were becoming adult -- much to our non-irradiated surprise. We'd gone from life is hopeless and pointless to life is going to continue so... now what? And what's this internet thing? The internet was inhabited by a select few who kind of had to know stuff until AOL started mailing everyone CDs to give your damn mom access. But still there was no social media -- instead spaces were organized by interests. Which allowed for communal gatekeeping, in a good way. If someone was just trolling the whole Collectable Card Game forum (for example) would boot them off. It wasn't toxic like now. (And there was still a decent chance any Keyboard Warrior would have to confront their victims IRL -- so people were just more chill).

• 
  Leigh (@LAB019) reported 21 minutes ago

  @jwalkermobile All but one, I never had an AOL email address.

• 
  Paul Walsh (@Paul__Walsh) reported 21 minutes ago

  People keep asking why Apple allowed OpenAI to build a ChatGPT integration for Messages. Do get to the point, I don’t think Apple anticipated a company using the permissions required by ChatGPT specifically to read, analyse and store people’s Messages when the Messages app includes iMessage and not just SMS. The entire point of iMessage is that it’s rich media *and* end to end encrypted. The permissions OpenAI needs exist for legitimate software, and Apple warns people before granting them. Backup software needs Full Disk Access to back up protected files. Security software needs it to inspect files for malicious activity. Disk utilities need it to search, recover and manage protected files. It’s similar to WebView. It gave developers a way to display parts of an app that could change without requiring a new app release and App Store review, such as terms of service, privacy policies and other remotely hosted content. In 2014, I predicted developers would eventually use WebView across every major app, with some apps built almost entirely inside it. I also warned this would create a security problem because WebView had no protection against dangerous links or malicious code typically found on webpages. Developers could make a WebView look identical to the native app, so people wouldn’t know whether they were using the app itself or interacting with a website. Today, in-app security is a multibillion dollar industry because it’s obvious that opening links inside an app might not be as safe as it should be. Most predictions, especially in the context of digital risk, are not believed by a lot of people. But they become obvious eventually. Today, I’m saying OpenAI’s ChatGPT integration with Apple Messages is more dangerous for some people than almost anything else on the market. Of course someone can take screenshots and send them to the FBI, repeat something they were told, or deliberately share a private conversation. That completely misses the point. None of those things is equivalent to giving an AI service automated access to read, analyse and store entire message histories involving everyone someone communicates with. Comparing deliberate human disclosure with automated access at scale ignores the capability that makes this fundamentally different. And why it removes the main benefit of end to end encryption. I can’t comprehend how security professionals can defend anything that undermines the purpose of end to end encryption by saying "but encryption isn’t broken". Protecting messages while they’re being transmitted means very little if an agent can systematically read, analyse and store them before they’re sent or after they’re received. Apple permissions have legitimate purposes. This particular use of them is the problem. During the early 2000s, I advocated for browser extensions. During the mid to late 2000s, before the first iPhone when mobile web didn't exist, I advocated for mobile web instead of WAP. In 2015, I advocated for chatbot integrations across messaging platforms and business tools. I’m a developer advocate, an open standards advocate, child safety advocate, and privacy advocate. I co-founded 2 W3C initiatives, including the Mobile Web Initiative, where I was tasked with rewriting Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of "One Web". And was a significant contributor to 8 technical specifications, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. I care about humanity. I don’t advocate for one thing in isolation from everything else. I’m a technical expert in specific areas with OSINT skills and 30 years across web, telecom, and mobile. 💡 I consider every stakeholder affected by open standards, technology, and legislation. Sometimes convenience justifies a privacy tradeoff. Sometimes privacy should take priority over security, and sometimes security should take priority over privacy. None of these should be treated as an absolute regardless of the consequences. In 2017, the PKI Consortium asked me to advise them privately and write about the impact DV SSL certificates and HTTPS Everywhere were having on anti phishing security. I faced fierce criticism from privacy advocates who argued that the connection should be encrypted even if the person on the other end was an impersonator. Those were their words. If you care, search for "Insecure Elephant in the Room". The fundamental reasons phishing works were the same when I was impersonated in 1996 when phishing was first discovered on the AOL network, the same when I wrote about it in 2017, and the same today. Now I have to argue with some security professionals defending something that undermines the purpose of end to end encryption. They need to look beyond the mechanics of software and encryption. Technology is an enabler. We need to consider human behaviour, how people will actually use a capability, and what happens when that behaviour occurs at scale. Also, the potential intent that goes beyond a website or privacy statement. I’ve faced this repeatedly over the years. Today, when I argue that government policies and age verification introduced in the name of online child safety and preventing child exploitation are actually surveillance measures, child safety advocates accuse me of not caring about children. This isn’t rocket science. Add AI to everything, even if you’re willing to accept the risks to yourself. But please don’t add AI in ways that undermine another person’s right to privacy or, depending on the context, their personal safety. Some people's lives depend on their ability to rely on end to end encryption. We're not talking about SMS. 💡Criticising the technology used to pursue an objective doesn’t mean opposing the objective.

• 
  Winton Dupree (@WintonDupree) reported 28 minutes ago

  @Irina_exh Never had an AOL address no matter how many times they tried to get me. All other boxes checked

• 
  Joe Schwarten (@joeschwarten) reported 31 minutes ago

  Had our yearly apartment inspection. 2 Guys comes in does their thing. Looks at my monitor, "Damn dude, that thing is old, you run AOL on it?" Other guy, "you even old enough to remember AOL?" YG, "Yeah, I was born in 1997." Me: "Dude, that monitor is as old as you are!"