Telstra outages and service status in Bardia, New South Wales

Problems in the last 24 hours in Bardia, New South Wales

The chart below shows the number of Telstra reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Bardia, New South Wales and surrounding areas. An outage is declared when the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line.

Live Outage Map Near Bardia, New South Wales

The most recent Telstra outage reports came from the following cities: Campbelltown.

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Campbelltown	Total Blackout	2 months ago
Campbelltown	Wi-fi	3 months ago

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.

Telstra Issues Reports Near Bardia, New South Wales

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in Bardia and nearby locations:

• 
  Stuart Crooks (@stuart_crooks) reported 9 minutes ago from Bardia, New South Wales

  Plus after spending 2 hrs on the phone last night your outages page confirms no outages. Even your support team said this is incorrect. WHAT IS GOING ON TELSTRA. You’re Australia biggest corporate and the service right now is what i expect from a start up

• 
  Stuart Crooks (@stuart_crooks) reported 50 minutes ago from Bardia, New South Wales

  @Telstra 8 days now and still no internet in Leppington. Plus you send us texts telling us to reconnect modem and if we don’t you’ll decrease speed. I DONT HAVE ANY SPEED TO DECREASE. Then when i call your support they can only escalate and not provide any meaningful ETA. HELP

Telstra Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  antqld (@antqldbwog) reported 6 minutes ago

  @EVERALDATLARGE He sold everything off Commonwealth’s property portfolio, Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, 167 tonnes of gold at 7% of what it’s worth today and failed to pay the public service superannuation leaving behind a $96 billion liability.

• 
  Bobby (@roberts_pa97578) reported 7 minutes ago

  @w0tn0t2201 @Telstra I’m the same as you. I’ve never used Telstra and I wouldn’t even use them if they were given away free carrier pigeons.

• 
  Hung Long 🇱🇧🇵🇸🇮🇶🪃 (@Elmer_Hauser) reported 9 minutes ago

  Realistically, Trembath should finish 3rd in the Telstra Rising Star after Jagga and Dean, even just for consistency's sake. Wilma Durrsma's last 6 weeks has been utter garbage #AFLNorthCats

• 
  Brent Hodgson (@BrentHodgson) reported 9 minutes ago

  @DHughesy No. Only an idiot would agree - because they'd be wrong. 1. It's not worth "over $300 billion". The $64 billion dollar investment is worth $269 billion 2. If you're using the "over 300 billion" figure ($337.2 billion) that figure means your "no future Fed Govt put one cent into it" bit is incorrect because this figure includes MULTIPLE additional multi-billion dollar funds added to the Future Fund's management portfolio. 3. The future fund wasn't built on some kind of free money windfall... The $64 billion invested came primarily from the Telstra sale. The Telstra sale meant the copper network was privatised, leading to Telstra putting shareholders first in refusing to bid on optic fibre rollouts. This meant the government has so far spent around $64 billion ($70bn by the end of the decade) to re-create Telstra's infrastructure under NBN Co. Meanwhile Telstra has paid $65-80bn in dividends since privatisation moved those dividends from public to private hands. So for every $1 we gained from the Telstra sale, we missed another $1 in dividends and spent another $1 in replacing the infrastructure we sold. Had a publicly-owned Telstra built the NBN out of dividends, and the government raised $64bn in debt to invest in a Future Fund, the books would look exactly the same as they do today. You've been dazzled by accounting tricks - following a magician's misdirection, and calling it "magic". 4. "negating the trillion plus debts... to some degree" is bullshit... It was created to cover DECADES worth of unpaid public service and military retirement benefits. Those debts amount to $322 billion, to be paid out of (currently) $269 billion in funds - leaving a $53 billion dollar black hole. Had the money been paid to super in a timely fashion (rather than the Future Fund being set up to cover unpaid pension debts), that $322 billion in benefits would be sitting in private super accounts right now. Again, you're dazzled by an accountant's magic tricks. Not free money - not "negating debts" - just a big government-owned super fund. "Can we all agree it was amazing when the magician sawed that woman in half! He should be a surgeon!"

• 
  afraid_au (@afraid_au) reported 9 minutes ago

  Aussie @tarkov players using iPrimus or Telstra as an ISP may be experiencing high ping to the Sydney server. No ETA on a fix at this time.

• 
  Kråke (@Kroke14) reported 10 minutes ago

  @TruthFairy131 @Qantas are using the smoke screen of AI adoption to make offshoring Australian jobs to India more palatable while trying to portray itself as an Australian company. This **** seems to accelerate whenever there is an incompetent female CEO at the helm, just look at @Telstra

• 
  Nino Alves (@NinoAlves_1) reported 11 minutes ago

  @Telstra I’ve been receiving account text alerts including their name and phone number relating to one of your customers for over a year. Prob a privacy issue but you refuse to fix it despite MANY calls and yr team acknowledging the issue!

• 
  Ray (@rayethesis) reported 12 minutes ago

  This chart puts Starlink’s scale into perspective. At roughly $11.4B in annualized revenue, Starlink is already approaching the revenue scale of established telecom giants such as Singtel and sits in the same neighborhood as Telstra. That is remarkable considering Starlink is a relatively young satellite broadband network competing against companies that have spent decades building terrestrial infrastructure, spectrum portfolios, and massive subscriber bases. The important signal here is not just the absolute revenue, but how quickly Starlink has reached a level that takes traditional telecom companies decades to build. However, the comparison also exposes the problem. Telecom is a huge business, but it is not necessarily a high-growth business. Companies like China Mobile, Verizon, Deutsche Telekom, AT&T and NTT generate tens or even hundreds of billions in annual revenue, yet the market typically assigns them much lower growth expectations because connectivity eventually becomes a mature utility. Starlink has a better growth profile today because it is still penetrating underserved markets, adding capacity, expanding internationally, and converting new customers. But as the revenue base moves from $10B toward $20B, $30B and beyond, the question becomes whether Starlink can maintain venture-like growth rates while operating inside what is ultimately a telecom market. The bullish argument is that Starlink is not exactly a traditional telecom company. Its satellite constellation gives SpaceX a global distribution network that terrestrial operators struggle to replicate, particularly in rural areas, developing markets, maritime, aviation and other difficult-to-connect environments. There is also optionality around direct-to-device connectivity, enterprise services, government contracts and potentially other satellite applications. If those businesses become meaningful revenue streams, Starlink could evolve from simply being "satellite internet" into a broader space infrastructure platform. That would justify a much more aggressive valuation than simply capitalizing Starlink like another telecom operator. But this is where I think investors need to be careful with the SpaceX hype. A $11.4B revenue run-rate sounds enormous, but revenue alone does not determine the quality of the business. Starlink requires enormous capital expenditure to deploy and replenish satellites, ground infrastructure and user terminals, while bandwidth economics and competition will determine how much of that revenue eventually becomes free cash flow. The really interesting question is not whether Starlink can reach $20B or $30B in revenue. It is whether SpaceX can continue compounding revenue rapidly without Starlink becoming just another giant, capital-intensive telecom business. My take: SpaceX is incredibly cool, and Starlink reaching ~$11.4B of annual revenue is genuinely impressive. But if the main growth engine for the SpaceX story is ultimately just telecom, I'm much less excited. A bigger Starlink is great, but a bigger telecom company alone does not create an extraordinary valuation. The real upside comes if Starlink becomes the cash-flow engine that funds a much larger SpaceX ecosystem: launch, defense, direct-to-device, satellite infrastructure and eventually entirely new space-based businesses. Starlink is impressive but starlink alone is not enough. $SPCX

• 
  Brett Cousins (@BrettWCousins) reported 14 minutes ago

  Boarded the Spirit of Tasmania Monday. Departed 6.45pm. Surging deep into the blackened waters of Bass Strait about 8.45, I lost the @Telstra network. It bravely held for 2 hours of glorious sea going connectivity. So why can’t I get a bloody #Telstra signal in #Elwood?!!

• 
  mike (@mikeshome2000) reported 15 minutes ago

  Just left the Telstra shop and there colours are orange, obviously they now support PHON