Telstra outages and service status in Marree, South Australia

Problems in the last 24 hours in Marree, South Australia

The chart below shows the number of Telstra reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Marree, South Australia 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.

Telstra Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  GayCarBoys (@GayCarBoys) reported 5 minutes ago

  @ShiannonC did i ever tell you about the time in telstra i got asked if i would have any problem working for a woman boss? that hateful place was rotten to the core

• 
  Lucy the Red (@LucytheRed1) reported 6 minutes ago

  @DHughesy You clearly don’t realize the Future Fund was: 1) primarily seeded by the sale of Telstra 2) Set up to fund existing government liabilities I’ll dumb it down for you. The Howard government sold our assets to fund existing liabilities. Embarrassed for you (again)

• 
  Mr.MojoRisn (@Totally4yeah) reported 9 minutes ago

  @DHughesy Aaron’s post is pure projection dressed up as wit. Dave Hughes—a comedian—got some Future Fund details wrong in a short clip (confusing it with debt, implying it was spent on GFC stimulus). Aaron then spent weeks delivering multi-thousand-word “corrections,” only to pivot, when Dave pointed out the Fund’s growth came almost entirely from Howard/Costello’s $60-64 billion seed (no further public contributions to the core fund after early Rudd), into the classic Labor-adjacent playbook: invent a payday conspiracy and declare victory. Facts Aaron keeps soft-pedalling: •The Future Fund was created by the Coalition with surplus cash and Telstra proceeds precisely to cover unfunded public-sector super liabilities that sit outside headline net debt. Its growth to ~$270-330 billion (including other managed vehicles) is investment returns, not ongoing Labor largesse. •Net debt added since 2007: Rudd/Gillard ~$190 bn, Coalition governments ~$366 bn (much of it pre-COVID), Albanese so far ~$75 bn. Absolute numbers do not support the “Labor alone ruined everything” narrative, but neither do they support Aaron’s selective framing that treats Coalition debt as somehow less real. •Australia’s GFC stimulus was borrowed, not raided from the Fund, and helped avoid recession—true—but that doesn’t erase the subsequent spending trajectory under both sides. Aaron boasts of criticising Labor on social-media bans, Comcars, Anika Wells, etc., yet his energy is overwhelmingly reserved for policing anyone who questions the post-2007 debt/spending record or the Albanese government’s performance. When those corrections land, the immediate response is “you must be paid by Labor/taxpayer.” That’s not analysis; it’s the standard deflection of someone whose default is to treat fiscal criticism of Labor as illegitimate. Kerry Packer’s line worked because Bond overpaid then collapsed. Here, the only collapse is the repeated refusal to concede that a comedian’s imperfect summary of economic history does not require a full-time unpaid opposition research unit. Knowing things is indeed useful. So is noticing when the fact-checker’s intensity and ad-hominem default look a lot more like advocacy than neutral accounting.

• 
  Dean Knight (@knightd73) reported 10 minutes ago

  @CKMonty Telstra ford customer is clear give away neither of them have customer care in their charter - used to long time ago 😜

• 
  The Noisy Elephant (@TheNoisyTrunk) reported 16 minutes ago

  Why are you fuckwits so dim? @eddys199 Australia was NOT debt-free in 2006. The Commonwealth had NET debt after selling our gold and major assets like Telstra. Australia still had significant state debt. The trouble with you morons is you read a headline, dive into a rabbit hole that even rabbits won't go in and come out all covered in old mouldy ****. Major contributors included: →Selling public assets (privatisations), most notably the government's remaining stake in Telstra, which raised tens of billions of dollars. →Strong economic growth during the mining boom, which boosted tax revenues. →A long period without major recessions or global crises until the GFC. Pauline Hanson is looking for a house 'friend' - you should apply.

• 
  GainsMax (@GainsMax168031) reported 16 minutes ago

  @SkullSpeedDeal A family member of mine over a decade ago ran a Telstra phone store, it became top 3 in the entire state because of his leadership. Anyway, something happened, and he told me the 2nd in charge (Indian) backstabbed him and took over the main position. A year later, the store had hired a lot of Indians and ended up being the worst store in the state lol

• 
  ろーら 🪷 (@rollablazer) reported 17 minutes ago

  Telstra, your 5G modems do not tell the truth. Your service is down and the modem is green. @Telstra

• 
  Ray (@rayethesis) reported 17 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

• 
  Brian Basson (@BassonBrain) reported 19 minutes ago

  "Asia Pacific went from world first to regional wave in 18 months" In December 2024, One NZ’s Satellite TXT debuted as the region’s first Starlink D2D service, available at no cost to eligible customers. It spans approximately 40% of New Zealand’s total landmass, where terrestrial coverage is unavailable, as well as roughly 20 km offshore. KDDI followed in April 2025 with au Starlink Direct, Japan’s first D2D service, then added app data in August 2025, support for a limited set of bandwidth-light apps beyond texting, and the first D2D data service anywhere. Telstra launched Australia’s first satellite texting product in early June 2025. One NZ added app data, including WhatsApp voice calls, in February 2026. SoftBank and docomo launched in April 2026, making Japan the only market where three operators run live Starlink services. Globe became the latest in the sequence in June 2026 with the Philippines’ first commercial satellite-to-mobile permit from the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

• 
  wildwitch (@wickedwildwitch) reported 23 minutes ago

  @Ausbobsmit he spends $7,000,000 each year + pus all his families holidays, internet, telstra bills, fuel, meals. and more. Not one cent from his own pocket. but he has the audacity to take from the poor and disabled