AOL outages and service status in Cottonwood, California

Problems in the last 24 hours in Cottonwood, California

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

• 
  Beholder242 (Brett T) (@beholder242) reported 3 minutes ago

  @ReavingMango @MagsNoctis 18. Never used AOL or a waterbed.

• 
  Jon Lareau (@Irunwithdogs) reported 3 minutes ago

  @BaileyRoseBoyle @AshleyInMKE That makes sense, and I'd imagine you're not alone in the experience of knowing what some things are despite never having actually used/ done them, like an AOL account.

• 
  JollyJoebean_VT (@joebeanclown) reported 3 minutes ago

  19 Never had an AOL.

• 
  Chris Neunreiter (@neunreiter) reported 5 minutes ago

  @nachtnoir @DebbieVee @middle_class_us We were dirt poor. No cable till I was 17, no internet other than free disk aol dialup till 16. Mom coupon shopped at Aldi's exclusively. We still went on family vacations once or twice a year. Albeit our vacations were either camping or road trip to a relatives.

• 
  Narratives Film | Research (@NarrativesFilm) reported 5 minutes ago

  For the desperate, diluted and delusional among both sides. Below is the latest News track on the Charlie Kirk debate reach. Dismal reporting, to say the least, which means claiming (by either side) “The Debate” had far reaching affects is factually ****; do do, crap, one massive dung heap, a crock of **** to be more visceral. ...Read it and weep (or, LYAO)! August 14, 2026: Immediately after ZERO coverage August 15, 2026: - Hollywood Life “Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson: What Happened at the Debate” - The Bulwark "The Charlie Kirk Murder Business Gets Its Crassest Spectacle Yet" - AOL "Owens 3/10 no evidence-based positions at all" - The Times of India “Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson: Inside the Firery Debate Over Charlie Kirk’s Murder...” - Hindustan Times "Who is Andrew Wilson? Did Candace Owens win the debate? 5 key takeaways as duo spars over Charlie Kirk" August 16, 2026: - Townhall “The Great Debate: A Logical Analysis of Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson” August 18, 2026: - The New Republic “The Charlie Kirk Grift”

• 
  Melody McCloud, M.D. (@DrMelodyMcCloud) reported 6 minutes ago

  @AOL I'm having so many glitches when typing emails!! Is something happening within the AOL software? Mercury is not even still in Retrograde, but I'm checking what I've typed many times because of these highlighting, moving, glitches. Help, please.

• 
  Anna Rios (@LatinladyAnna) reported 6 minutes ago

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

• 
  Brett Caughran (@FundamentEdge) reported 7 minutes ago

  My playful analogy is we are in the AOL era of AI. Early stage of a revolutionary technology, but the delivery mechanism is still clunky, requiring really dumb concepts like prompt engineering. In 1996, you couldn't even imagine business models like Uber, Netflix, the iPhone, YouTube or Tesla FSD, because the technology wasn't even close to capable or cost effective enough. From 1996-2006 global data volume grew by a factor of 10,000,000x (per Gemini), but that growth was hugely deflationary (wholesale IP transit cost down 99%), i.e. good for the application layer and selectively bad for the pipe owners (telecom). Overall, the mix of massive volume growth offset against gnarly price deflation has been a, net/net, positive thing for telecom investing. Does that hold for the frontier labs? "Intelligence pipe" feels like it can be a pretty damn awesome business, but, like telecoms, the evolution of "intelligence pipe as a business" will be extremely path dependent and will require real business models with attractive unit economics to fund. Obviously most of the 90's era telecoms went bust and the assets were only financially productive for the 2nd or 3rd owners, mostly due to balance sheet issues & the subsequent closing of the capital markets window. Though capital markets have evolved materially since the early 2000's telecom bust with a regulatory environment more supportive of monopolies/oligopolies and private capital markets more supportive of funding massive cash burn (to wit, I think it's a really bad idea for Anthropic to IPO in '26, but what do I know?). So imagine that prior but like 10-100x the size of the internet. Maybe more? As in 1996 when you couldn't even envision Netflix/Uber, the iPhone or Tesla FSD, we have zero idea what 2056 looks like, but the exponential will certainly drive even more upside uncertainty in technology. idk, hard to be structurally bearish on the "intelligence pipe" and subsequently, infrastructure that feeds the pipe (though it feels certain there will be super gnarly potholes, messy shakeouts, and bankruptcies along the way, as we saw in telecom evolution), and ultimately what matters is free cash flow production, which feeds from the intersection of exponential volumes against unit level deflation. What's exciting to me with the improvement in the models, both frontier like Fable/Sol and open source like Kimi/GLM/Deep-Seek, is you are getting *closer* to seeing a real application layer possible in a very intellectually difficult sandbox like public market investing. Nearly four years from GPT 3.5 demo, we still aren't there. We are still in the "AOL era" - too slow, not competent enough, too expensive. But we are getting closer. So are we exiting the AOL era? It feels to me like we might be. If I had to guess, my guess is the frontier labs continue to be good businesses (and extremely volatile public stocks), mostly due to the reflexive nature of capital markets & talent acquisition. But what seems really obvious, to me, is that 2026-2036 is going to be the era of the application layer, where the Travis Kalanick-style entrepreneur takes this "intelligence pipe" and envisions new & groundbreaking businesses that change the world. That entrepreneurial accelerate will drive durable and accelerating demand for the intelligence pipe, it seems. It's a really exciting time to be alive.

• 
  Emily (@MissEMILYs) reported 7 minutes ago

  I need to enlist an aol chatroom or something. ********. I need to chat about this, lmao.

• 
  ramzy (@0xRamzy) reported 10 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. ↓