AOL outages and service status in Ogunquit, Maine

Problems in the last 24 hours in Ogunquit, Maine

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

• 
  JJ Faulk (@JohnWilliamFau2) reported 5 minutes ago

  @SanityHak Thats one thing I picked up on in Miss Hyde's Testilying to checking Safari search history , wait what ? Safari is not and I repeat is not a search engine , they simply take your request and use Google and AOL and other search engines so by checking these search histories would tell Hyde the exact time That search was made and open tabs wouldn't matter but if she did check them she never said so ! Fraudsters for hire and a stinking *** judge who allowed false testimony in this trial and you can bet your *** Karen wins her lawsuit when they check all this stuff like invested videos and low quality security footage , 43 minutes missing , a bunch of bullshit **** and the antis can ride this **** straight to hell !

• 
  Fred Johnston (@JohnstonFredJ) reported 5 minutes ago

  @getwhatugive @LynAldenContact You’re collapsing the product and the protocol. BlackRock/MSTR make money if demand for bitcoin rises. Demand rises when access gets easier: brokerage accounts, 401ks, treasuries, Lightning, hardware wallets. Shrinking the buyer pool would hurt their bags. That’s the opposite incentive of “reduce access.” Early internet had AOL too. Walled gardens expanded the user base first. The open network still won because the protocol wasn’t owned by AOL.Same here. An ETF is not a modem ban. Anyone can still run a node, hold keys, and send sats. Institutions can offer a wrapper. They cannot revoke the chain. “Gemini agrees” is not an argument. The music-sharing analogy also fails: Napster was illegal and centralized. Bitcoin settles on a public ledger. You don’t sterilize that by listing a ticker.

• 
  Currer Ellis (@ActonBell) reported 5 minutes ago

  @DerrickEvans4WV Can we just go back to AOL and dial up internet? Do we really need everything connected to everything…? I don’t think so. Let’s cancel this AI stuff.

• 
  FlandoCalrissian (@FlandoCalrissan) reported 7 minutes ago

  @theamelia___ 19. Never had an AOL address

• 
  John (@tobeawitness) reported 7 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.

• 
  Jason Coy (@CoyJason58232) reported 10 minutes ago

  @AbakpaJob You're right. AOL gave me access for free for a decade. Phone company didn't charge for the call or extra line. I never had a pop-up ad trying to sell me anything. DARPA didnt pay one government contractor.

• 
  Khazar Theory Enthusiast (@ashkenahzee) reported 12 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

• 
  Kitty 🐈 Ⓜ️🕸MikeCryptoLife 🛡🐈 (@mikecryptolife) reported 14 minutes ago

  @theswansjr Internet isn't a good example. It's like saying ohhh we can see because there is light, name something that's replaced light. You should ask about AOL, Netscape, napster type ****. Those were the Bitcoins of internet

• 
  Todd AF (@BigTodd1776) reported 16 minutes ago

  @DavidShafer I thought @mapquest went out with AOL online, my bad...I do remember when cassette tape got feisty with Compact Disk for about 15 minutes, then they just went away. Bye Mapquest.

• 
  Daniil (@DaniilBuilds) reported 17 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.