AOL outages and service status in Woodland, California

Problems in the last 24 hours in Woodland, California

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

• 
  Dutchyyy (@Dutchmassive) reported 4 minutes ago

  @bigvibessss If you could actually fully recover MySpace and aol mail (pre data wipe) The heavens would sing, and my broken body would break dance & do the worm

• 
  Lab-Man (@LaboratoryMan6) reported 4 minutes ago

  @ThrillaRilla369 AOL. I lost my *** on that garbage company when my brokerage managed account doubled down on AOL-Time Warner.

• 
  (Light Bringer) + (Black in German) (@CosmicInglewood) reported 8 minutes ago

  Firefox browser now, Pop! OS New PC online, working Glad to build a PC again Built my first PC 30 years ago IDE 10mb HDD, Pentium CPU, AGP GPU, Disc Drive Dial-up Modem *phone line required, slow AOL, Netscape Navigator, Windows 95

• 
  CEO of Racism, homophobia, misogyny & model trains (@moboftwitsproof) reported 9 minutes ago

  @ArrioHicko33777 @PrinnyCherry @Kari445009 long ago I worked for AOL. in the smoker break area an argument broke out between signups and support. Support was saying signnups are a bigger part of the problem because they were adding users. signups was saying support was the problem because they were keeping ppl on dialup.

• 
  Goebz (@Raptor_RUD) reported 13 minutes ago

  @SpaceX service is hands down a nerd's dream. At 37 years old, having gone from getting an AOL disk at the Grand Union to 300+ Mbps from space tickles me in a way my wife can’t.

• 
  🔻agitprop + absurdity🔻 (@agtprpnabsrdty) reported 13 minutes ago

  Different decade, same math: half the S&P 500 is priced at levels that a dot-com CEO called proof of investor insanity while watching his company crater 90%. The rotation at the top: In early 2000, the ten most valuable S&P 500 companies read like a monument to permanent dominance: Microsoft, General Electric, Cisco, Walmart, ExxonMobil, Intel, Lucent, IBM, Citigroup, AOL. A generation later, only Microsoft remains. GE was carved into three separate companies. Lucent was absorbed by Nokia. AOL became the cautionary tale attached to the worst merger in corporate history. Cisco and Intel spent 25 years climbing back to their dot-com peaks. Citigroup, IBM, Walmart, and ExxonMobil still exist, but none crack the top ten. The new top ten is Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and the AI infrastructure complex. Investors in 2000 were also certain they were buying the future's permanent giants. The data says most of today's winners won't be in the top ten a generation from now either, and there is no mechanism by which you find out which ones survive in advance. The valuation problem: In 2002, after Sun Microsystems collapsed 90%, CEO Scott McNealy explained to investors exactly what a 10x sales multiple actually demands: 100% of revenues paid as dividends for ten consecutive years, with zero costs, zero R&D, zero taxes, and zero employees. He was describing the math of the price investors had paid for his stock as a form of collective psychosis. Today, 51% of the S&P 500 by market cap trades above 10x sales. Half the index. The AI narrative is functioning as the dot-com narrative functioned: a story compelling enough to make the math feel optional. The math has never been optional.

• 
  Ian ᯅ (@somenuso) reported 14 minutes ago

  @POTFES This is not accurate. The DMA, DSA, AI Act, and similar frameworks are not examples of member states forcing Brussels to overregulate. They are EU level regulatory projects, proposed, negotiated, adopted, and enforced through the EU institutional system. Member states are part of that machine, but pretending the problem is only national fragmentation conveniently ignores what Brussels itself is doing. And yes, a deeper internal market would be useful. Easier company formation, better access to capital, lower compliance costs, cheaper energy, and less fragmentation would help. But that is not the same as giving the Commission more power to micromanage technology. If American tech dominates, Europe should compete by building better products on honest market terms, not by regulating superior foreign companies and hoping European champions appear afterward. Markets are not static. IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Nokia, BlackBerry, Yahoo, AOL, MySpace, and many others once looked dominant in their own domains. They were challenged, displaced, or diminished because better technologies, better products, and better business models emerged. That is how real competition works. Innovation comes from builders, capital, talent, risk, and consumer choice. It does not come from Brussels officials deciding how platforms should be designed.

• 
  Don (@domainpad) reported 14 minutes ago

  @cultra I will take ICP over anything. Can build an entire site onchain. Bitcoin will be like AOL it will still hang around for years because you can't do anything with it.

• 
  Gary Dauphin (@GeeDeezyDauphin) reported 20 minutes ago

  @TTrimoreau Anyone remember Apple's EWorld? It was Apple's attempt to gain some of the profits from the internet craze. I told them it would fail. It ended up being a year and half late, and was still just a rebranded version of AOL online. It folded shortly after being released.

• 
  MichaelJensen1 (@_Kadmos1) reported 22 minutes ago

  It was dumb for the AOL Time Warner, Disney-Fox, and AT&T Time Warner mergers to happen. It is wrong for Paramount Skydance trying to get WB Discovery. Fox Corp getting Tubi was fine but Roku is not. Reason I am fine with Fox Corp getting Tubi is because the buy-out was a lot smaller. Now, if the Fox Corp never bought Tubi but just bought Roku, I would be a bit less opposed because they would have one less big streaming platform.