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 24 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 54 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:

• 
  Ronnie Chapman (@ronnnie_12trans) reported 8 minutes ago

  @SWatMR11 @GusLefty Rex was dropped by Qantas and that idiot Joyce was an instigator . 48% of telstra sold off by Howard ,Hockey responsible for the demise of Ford, GMH and Toyota pulling out of Australia.

• 
  Brent Hodgson (@BrentHodgson) reported 8 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!"

• 
  leki ⚔️ (@mkfilko) reported 12 minutes ago

  $BRUN and $SHAZ are the two small cap neoclouds people keep putting in the same bucket. Somewhat similar market caps, both Nasdaq listed this year, both with an NVIDIA story attached. I think both provide compelling reasons to invest your money into, however, I do believe BRUN is the superior neocloud. I will present the facts as they are and sprinkle some commentary in it. You can use the facts to decide which is better for you. TL;DR at the bottom. Start with contract book versus actual revenue. Q2 2026, same quarter, both companies: > $BRUN revenue: $31.1M, up ~270% YoY > $SHAZ revenue: $1.9M, up ~412% YoY > $BRUN total contract value: $1.9B > $SHAZ total contract value: $8.8B $SHAZ carries 4.6 times the contract book on about one sixteenth of the revenue. Put differently, $BRUN's backlog is roughly 15 times its current annualized run rate. $SHAZ's is closer to 1,100 times. $SHAZ management guides first material revenue to Q4 2026. $BRUN has six sites in production today, took ARR from $30M at the end of 2025 to $145M by June, and reaffirmed roughly $400M exit ARR. A contract book is a claim while revenue is the confirmation of that claim. $BRUN has so far managed to prove that it is able to convert the contract book better than $SHAZ. Moving to the balance sheet, which is where $SHAZ shines > $SHAZ ended Q2 with roughly $1.9B in cash against $BRUN's $134.7M as of August 12. It has raised about $2.2B since December 2025, including a $1.6B oversubscribed round in June. On funding capacity this is not close, and $SHAZ wins it decisively. > The NVIDIA arrangement. Six years, $4.88B, up to 40,000 GB300 GPUs on NVIDIA's DSX AI factory design, 72MW in Australia, with NVIDIA taking product revenue plus a share of cloud revenue on supported capacity. Management describes the guaranteed pricing as a floor rather than a ceiling. $BRUN has no equivalent. This is the strongest single item in the $SHAZ file and anyone comparing the two has to concede it. Next, counterparty/customer quality: On April 1 $SHAZ announced a five year, $1.25B AI cloud infrastructure agreement, roughly 8,200 B300 GPUs deployed in Australia. The counterparty is ESDS Software Solution, an Indian cloud and managed services provider. ESDS is a real company. Five data centers in India, 2,501 customers as of FY26, growing revenue at a 28% CAGR. Using its own most recent disclosed accounts: > ESDS FY26 revenue: Rs 472 Cr, roughly $54M > ESDS FY26 profit after tax: Rs 121 Cr, roughly $14M > Annual obligation under the $SHAZ contract: ~$250M The yearly payment is about 4.7 times the counterparty's entire annual revenue and roughly 18 times its net profit. ESDS filed a Rs 720 Cr IPO in India on August 28, which raises roughly $82M against a five year obligation of $1.25B. Nothing here requires assuming bad faith by anyone. It requires asking how a company earning $14M a year funds $250M a year, and that question does not yet have a public answer. ESDS was not named on the $SHAZ Q2 call. When compared to $BRUN's own customer book: $BRUN's weaknesses are the concentration of their revenues. The top three customers were about 76% of 2025 revenue, with RunPod alone, a private GPU cloud platform, at about 45%. Both figures fell hard from 2024 on revenue that more than doubled, so concentration is getting lower. However, I think there is still room for improvement here. The quality side. The largest new contract signed is Thinking Machines Lab, roughly $470M over three years for about 5,000 GPUs, which implies around $3.60 per GPU hour. Mira Murati's lab raised $2B at a $12B valuation and has been reported in talks at a materially higher one since. That is a counterparty that can fund a $470M commitment out of capital already raised. Additionally there are the two agreements sitting in the Q2 10-Q, which are the part I find most useful because the cash terms are filed rather than announced: > June 8 agreement, 240 GPU servers, three year initial term, total consideration ~$207.6M. Structure: $18.97M prepaid before services commence, a further $37.94M on the commencement date, then ~$3.69M a month. That is about 27% of contract value collected at or before day one, and the first $18.97M was already sitting in customer deposits at June 30. > July 9 order form, 192 servers and 1,536 B300 GPUs, 48 month term, total contract value ~$222.5M. A prepayment equal to 25% of contract value, approximately $55.6M, not refundable, due in installments through service start. Two contracts, roughly $430M combined, each with a quarter of the money committed before a GPU is deliveredKaros on the call: > "We obtain prepayment on every deal we close." Average prepayment is 22% of TCV, and that single design choice runs a counterparty credit test automatically, at signing, on every contract. A $1.25B agreement under this structure would require roughly $275M wired before a single rack is energized. A counterparty that cannot post it never becomes backlog in the first place. Guckel confirmed what has actually been collected: > "we held $128.4 million in total customer deposits" $34.9M current, $93.5M long term, against compute scheduled for 2026 and 2027 delivery. So $BRUN's book is concentrated and its largest customer is a reseller, both fair criticisms. It is also a book where the customers have already wired a fifth of the money. Backlog funded in cash is a different asset class from backlog that has only been announced. Onto leadership, which is where most of my confidence actually comes from. On paper, $SHAZ has the more directly relevant development resume. James Manning has built and monetized more than 300MW of energy and compute infrastructure across Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and Australia, and founded a Nasdaq listed digital infrastructure company before this one. Nick Hughes-Jones ran 100 modular data centers across 200MW. The board is genuinely credentialed: Andrew Penn AO, former Telstra CEO, chairs it, and Western Union's chief legal officer sits on it. Anuj Goel joined as CFO from a 20 year Macquarie career running technology for APAC. Commercially they have people out of IBM, Microsoft, Rackspace and Equinix. This is not a shell. Three things still separate the two teams for me. > Tenure and continuity. $SHAZ's chief executive took the role in January 2026, its chairman arrived in May, its chief legal officer inside the last year, and its CFO in August. Board average tenure is roughly 0.6 years. That is a leadership team assembled over about twelve months, now asked to deliver 212MW. $BRUN's is the same group twice: Karos and Georgakopoulos both built Blue Fire Capital, both went to Galaxy Digital when it was acquired, and both left together to build this. Second company, same bench, and Georgakopoulos has been COO since April 2024. > They were the demanding customer before they were the vendor. Karos was MD and Head of Electronic Trading at Galaxy Digital and an executive committee member, and before that co founded and ran Blue Fire Capital across six countries and thirteen data centers. Karim Ali, the CIO, spent close to twenty years in performance sensitive infrastructure, built ultra low latency trading networks across four continents on microwave, millimeter wave and global fiber, and led a FedRAMP certification. In high frequency trading, latency and downtime hit the operator's own P&L the same day. This team ran compute as a cost center where failure was expensive to them personally, then went and sold it. That is a different instinct from developing a site and leasing it out. > Financing sits inside the company. Erik Guckel holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering from Illinois alongside a Chicago MBA, has closed over $2B in corporate transactions, managed a $3B debt portfolio, and secured funding for first of a kind facility construction. Karos has a derivatives and mathematical background and a track record monetizing billions in credit facilities. On the Q2 call he worked the prepayment against capex arithmetic live rather than passing it to the CFO, which is pretty damn impressive Both teams have now had one quarter to show what they do with a promise. $BRUN's first print as a public company came in at $31.1M with guidance reaffirmed. $SHAZ reported $1.93M against roughly $7.54M expected, a miss of about 75%, and moved first material revenue to Q4. I acknowledge that one quarter proves very little on its own. However, it is still the only head to head delivery test either team has actually run. Apart from the balance sheet mentioned earlier, $BRUN is also arguably weaker in its share structure and governance risks (dual-edged sword): Applying a governance screen to $SHAZ means applying the same screen to $BRUN. It has a dual class structure, roughly 50M Class A against 29.5M Class B. It had a related party loan from its own CEO, since repaid at closing. A director received a 336,000 share consulting grant that fully vested inside one quarter. And 7,875,000 CEO earnout shares plus sponsor and SPV earnouts all hit their price targets and vested within a single quarter of listing. These are ordinary **** era structures on both sides. Neither company is a governance exemplar What I am watching next: The NVIDIA financing gap is the strongest argument for $SHAZ, and $BRUN management spent a meaningful portion of the Q2 call signalling they are working on the same thing. Karos, on the AI Cloud Partner program: > "It's a well-known publicized program with NVIDIA, and obviously NVIDIA's investment grade. At the appropriate time, we can get into more details on that." Later, on the $500B consortium: > "And same with the AICP. We think that that program will continue to get extremely interesting, and I think we're going to have a plentiful amount of optionality currently and go forward." Guckel, separately: > "We continue to innovate on financing structures beyond the equipment financing approach used to date and expect to provide additional color and progress on this over the next quarter." And on the relationship itself: > "together, we are exploring deployments at scale that could meaningfully expand our footprint" None of that is signed. Management is definitely teasing a NVDA-linked financing structure during the call. But the specific advantage $SHAZ holds today is the specific advantage $BRUN is signalling it is negotiating, with a next quarter timeline attached to it, from a company NVIDIA already granted exemplar status and audits cluster by cluster. TL;DR: $SHAZ has the better balance sheet and the better NVIDIA arrangement, today, and neither of those is a small thing. $BRUN has sixteen times the revenue, a contract book that customers have already funded a fifth of in cash, six sites in production, and a counterparty filter built into how it signs deals. Between a large announced book and a smaller collected one, I think the collected one is a safer and yet equally asymmetric. Thanks for reading!

• 
  Paul Morris (@thefireman08) reported 14 minutes ago

  @craigspeculator @Foxtel Telstra aren’t much better. My mum had a mobile plan with them and hardly used. Something they could see from the monthly bills. In care because of dementia they insisted she would have to ring to cancel the plan.

• 
  Tom English (@thmsenglsh) reported 16 minutes ago

  (2 cont:) and this would fluctuate WILDLY based on the day to day. If Telstra has an outage, people won't be nominating them to receive any govt money anytime soon 3) or govt would have to guess who to go to for contracts

• 
  Nicole Kennedy 🇦🇺 (@kennedylnicole) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Telstra I have requested cancellation of a service on four separate occasions, yet continue to be charged multiple times. This morning your chat team again asked whether I wish to cancel it. Please confirm the cancellation under reference 130242508 and address my complaint 136862308 at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

• 
  🌸 Rita Gee ♥ 🇦🇺 (@Riogallica) reported 17 minutes ago

  @NBN_Australia is a joke. For the 2nd time in 2 wks my connection is down - their fault. They can't come out to fix it till next Monday! If I can find a reputable @STARLINK installer in my regional area, I'd be thankful (Jervis Bay NSW). I'm past climbing on roofs these days. Any recommentations? My @telstra hot spotting is the pits.

• 
  Roller D (@RollerD3) reported 17 minutes ago

  "Something went wrong" @Telstra The biggest POS company in Australia. Its Mind boggling how **** the sim card activation process it. ******* useless.

• 
  Ross Vallance (@ross_vallance) reported 19 minutes ago

  @blu_boys @Optus If you bank with commonwealth they have a deal with more. It uses the Telstra network, usually 25% off with an already well priced plan.

• 
  Mo Syed (@msyed_) reported 19 minutes ago

  What's happening in my beautiful land down under? 1/10 CBA just dropped a record $10.98B profit, but mortgage demand is down 17%. Telstra is buying back $1B of its own stock while cutting 1,200 jobs. And the global AI compute backlog just blew past $104 billion. Here is what actually moved markets this week 🧵👇 2/10 First, the big picture: US inflation cooled to 3.4%, sending the S&P 500 to another record close above 7,798. Back home, the RBA held the cash rate steady at 4.35% for the fourth meeting in a row. Markets got the inflation numbers they wanted. Local reporting season, however, told a much more complicated story. 3/10 Commonwealth Bank delivered a massive $10.98 billion cash profit, with a full-year dividend of $5.05 per share. On paper, it looks like business as usual for Australia’s biggest lender. Under the hood, the pipeline tells a very different story. 4/10 CBA CEO Matt Comyn revealed mortgage applications dropped roughly 17% following the May federal budget tax changes on property investors. Investor lending took the hardest hit. As a result, CBA quietly trimmed its FY27 mortgage credit growth guidance down to 4-5%. The headline profit belongs to the past year. The slowdown belongs to the next one. 5/10 Telstra delivered $2.41B in net profit, lifted its dividend by 10.5%, and announced a fresh $1B share buyback. Yet its shares dropped around 4 to 5%. Why? Top-line revenue growth was soft. The strong bottom line relied heavily on cost-cutting, including 1,200 job cuts across the year. Investors want real growth, not just financial engineering. 6/10 The global AI compute crunch is getting wilder. Neocloud provider Nebius saw Q2 revenue rocket 454% to $582M, flipping from a loss to $236M in adjusted EBITDA. CoreWeave doubled its revenue to $2.6B and raised full-year guidance to over $12.4B. Its near-term GPU capacity is completely sold out with an eye-watering $104B backlog. 7/10 On the ASX, money quietly rotated out of miners and into healthcare heavyweights. CSL, Pro Medicus, ResMed, and Cochlear all caught a bid in a single session. With commodity prices wobbling, fund managers are ditching cyclical resources and hunting for steady, reliable earnings. 8/10 Rubbish turned into gold this week. Cleanaway Waste Management surged 15% after global private equity giant EQT dropped a $9.4 billion takeover bid at $3.13 a share. That is a 32% premium. Cleanaway’s board opened the books for a nine-week due diligence period and plans to recommend the deal if it locks in. 9/10 The takeaway: Bank profits are riding high on yesterday’s loans, but higher rates and tax changes are biting the lending pipeline. Meanwhile, Big Tech and infrastructure players are pouring billions into compute capacity that is already sold out years in advance. The divide between traditional lending and the compute economy is widening fast.