Telstra outages and service status in Daylesford, Victoria

Problems in the last 24 hours in Daylesford, Victoria

The chart below shows the number of Telstra reports we have received in the last 24 hours from users in Daylesford, Victoria 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:

• 
  Meg Coffey (@TexanMeg) reported 2 minutes ago

  Hey @Telstra I still have no service. Any chance of a human, anywhere, that might be willing to help your paying customer?! Stop the chat bots. Employ humans.

• 
  Big Dazz (@DBureges) reported 9 minutes ago

  @AFL @Telstra Did they just breed another Heeney wtf

• 
  Mr.MojoRisn (@Totally4yeah) reported 10 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.

• 
  SonicHacki (ConcordeHacki) (@SonicHacki) reported 11 minutes ago

  @TennyUnderscore Damn based Telstra

• 
  leki ⚔️ (@mkfilko) reported 21 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!

• 
  Nicole Kennedy 🇦🇺 (@kennedylnicole) reported 23 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. Can you also explain the photo information? Thank you.

• 
  Hugh_96 (@Hugh_96) reported 25 minutes ago

  @susanmandrews RA seems to be taking quite a unique approach to the women’s rugby program. We have all been through it. Unless it is a significant issue which requires an apology eg Optus/Telstra outages, just put out a holding statement & some spin. RA is lucky not much media interest in rugby

• 
  Paradoxa (@Paradoxa18) reported 27 minutes ago

  @Telstra Please Phone out May 30 only back a few days before out again It's a known issue

• 
  Bighead1883 @henrykklemens.bsky.social (@Biggy1883again) reported 28 minutes ago

  @Telstra Hi Ivan, people are not always home, hence why we ALL have mobile phones. Check Telstra history re Laverton. We do have an ongoing problem that gets patched numerous time per year. I do not get town slowness if I`m at/near a mine-site which has better internet speeds.

• 
  afraid_au (@afraid_au) reported 28 minutes ago

  @LmDread @tarkov Telstra appears to have stabilised for Sydney. Which servers are you having issues with, and which ISP are you with?