Telstra outages and service status in Marulan, New South Wales

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

The chart below shows the number of Telstra reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Marulan, 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 Marulan, New South Wales

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Marulan	Internet	1 month 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

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Michele Scheffler (@MicheleScheffl1) reported 4 minutes ago

  @JohnOSullivan36 @MichaelWestBiz @MichaelPascoe01 I was hacked this week by a Telstra scam. Thankfully my Bank locked my Acs but I have used the entire week changing drivers licence, Medicare ,etc. 2 x200 k trips to Phone Dr for cleaning. I knew I should hang up but they had every base covered. It has knocked my confidence.

• 
  😻CalamityKitty ✝️ (@CalamityKittyAU) reported 8 minutes ago

  @grok Telstra. Phone on. Connected to network. Not in plane mode. Not out of range. In range. Receiving and making all calls and texts. No blocks. Everything normal. Did. Not. Receive.

• 
  Ray Finkle (@itsrayfinkle) reported 14 minutes ago

  AusAlert cost ~$130 million to rollout. A 13x increase from the $10m initial budget. Here are the known costs and estimates: $10m Initial Planning Taskforce $60-70m Carrier access tolls (Telstra, Optus, TPG) $30m Security architecture & hardening $20-25m Foreign hardware + offshore managed services $5-10m Public awareness, testing & administration Want to know how each allocation is spent? Too bad. Contractors and government use "Commercial-in-Confidence" clauses to keep specific commercial margins and costs hidden from the public eye. A 1300% blowout with no accountability.

• 
  X Freeze (@XFreeze) reported 14 minutes ago

  Starlink is bringing satellite-powered mobile data directly to compatible smartphones in Australia Through Telstra, eligible customers beyond mobile coverage can now access select satellite-optimised apps: • Navigation: Apple Maps, Google Maps and AllTrails • Messaging: Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook Messenger and Google Messages • Weather and fitness: Apple Weather, AccuWeather, Google Weather and Google Fitness No Starlink dish or special satellite phone required. Just a supported device and a clear view of the sky This is a major leap beyond satellite texting toward useful mobile data directly from space More than 26 million texts sent or received Over 200,000 satellite connections per day Currently supported on iPhone 13 or newer and Samsung Galaxy S26 models The future of connectivity is coming from orbit

• 
  afraid_au (@afraid_au) reported 17 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.

• 
  💧Daren Connor 🇦🇺 (@connor_daren) reported 18 minutes ago

  With all the massive profits that @Telstra are making, it’s about time they use some to improve their network coverage in areas other than big cities. Rural & regional areas all seem to share the one tower. Some even have to drive a kilometre to get service for a call.

• 
  Ian Linklater (@IanLinklater5) reported 21 minutes ago

  @Telstra Now about your accountability . How do I contact my service provider when you have shut down my ability to contact anyone ? I have been shut down since early am and is now late afternoon . Tuesday 28th of July. This is Bull **** service !

• 
  Ray (@rayethesis) reported 21 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

• 
  John Livingstone (@JohnLiv96683208) reported 25 minutes ago

  @moosemobileau If anyone is ever thinking of changing their mobile phone service to Moose Mobile,I strongly suggest you DO NOT. Their Pathetic customer service is right up there with @Telstra. No Phone support No email support #moosemobileterrible

• 
  Mr.MojoRisn (@Totally4yeah) reported 25 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.