Telstra outages and service status in Bilpin, New South Wales

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

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

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

• 
  Liam Shorte (@SMSFCoach) reported 39 minutes ago from Kurrajong Heights, New South Wales

  @psimpsonmorgan The choice being to go down like Kodak sticking to film or adapt like Telstra is from fixed line to 5G

Telstra Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  jordanjackelyse (@jordanjackelyse) reported 6 minutes ago

  @noahitallll @PatricPaal @pelisonlinegrat Work choices, joined the Iraq war, sold off last shares commonwealth bank, Telstra, and long term leases for airports, and then the biggest one of all. His 2002 China LNG (liquefied natural gas) agreement signed was the worst resource deal in Australian history. He was bad. 🤡

• 
  Lyall Mercer (@Lyall_Mercer) reported 7 minutes ago

  @Telstra Four frustrating weeks of call centres, troubleshooting, refusing to elevate us to managers, cancelling technicians. Four weeks of no home internet, losing money and being given the run around. It’s not hard. Is @Telstra the worst company in Aust for customer service? Still not fixed.

• 
  Senator Sarah Henderson (@SenSHenderson) reported 8 minutes ago

  Anika Wells’ claim 'the industry must learn from its mistakes' following a damning report into the catastrophic Telstra outage is not good enough.  The collapse of Telstra’s mobile network on 8 July this year caused chaos with payment systems, shut down train networks, and stopped some people calling triple zero. Mobile telecommunications networks are critical infrastructure.  That is why, on the day of the outage, the Coalition called on the government to urgently deliver mobile network reliability standards.  There must be appropriate minimum standards in place governing the reliability, performance, and maintenance of our mobile networks with significant penalties when those standards are breached.  Asking telcos to 'rebuild trust with Australians by ensuring networks do not succumb to preventable failures’, as the minister stated today, is like hitting the telcos with a piece of wet lettuce.  The minister’s silence on the need for a tougher regulatory framework is deafening.

• 
  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.

• 
  Di Downunder (@DFactualists) reported 9 minutes ago

  F'ing @Telstra on an inportant call get disconnected! Message comes up 'not registered on network' ********.

• 
  Hung Long 🇱🇧🇵🇸🇮🇶🪃 (@Elmer_Hauser) reported 12 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

• 
  Carstendog (@carstendog) reported 13 minutes ago

  @fictillius I do love the fact that Telstra phone booths are a free service now and essentially only exist as advertising billboards

• 
  Ray (@rayethesis) reported 13 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

• 
  ACCAN (@ACCAN_AU) reported 14 minutes ago

  That's a wrap on @Techingov_AU in Canberra. Two consumer takeaways: new tech must work for everyone, not just the average user and trust in government services must be informed by consumers and measurable, including traceability of AI agents. Also a sharp breakdown of the Telstra outage from Frank den Hartog (Uni of Canberra). #TechinGov

• 
  Michele Scheffler (@MicheleScheffl1) reported 14 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.